lilllllllllillMIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIlilillllllllllrl't!!!'!:;:  ifli: 


UC-NRLF 


B     3     37M     7^2 


THIS  BOOK  IS  PRESENTED 

Witli  ttiB  Goinpliments  of  the  RUthor 


BATTLE  CREEK,  IOWA 


If  it  should  go  astray,  it  may  be  claimed  by  any   Con- 
gregational or  Presbyterian  Minister 


OP  thf: 


University  of  California. 


IKT  OK 


Received  ■  yjt^Oyr-c/xy     .  i8q&  . 
Acccssiou  No./^  J^^-        CLns  No. 


^*^- 

.  '♦¥. 


if. 


[fi'Z 


^'l^ 


a:. 


BIBLE  CHRONOLOGY  ^ 

CAREFULLY   UNFOLDED. 


SHOWING: 


I. — That  there  is  a  Bible  Chronology,  which  is  strik- 
ingly definite  and  evident  to  the  searcher  after  truth. 

II. — That  there  is  no  outside  Chronology,  at  all  reliable, 
to  set  aside  the  Bible  Chronology. 

III. — That  therefore  the  Scriptures  are  historicall}'  truth- 
ful, giving  a  correct  account  of  ancient  events  and  dates. 


TO   WHICH    IS    ADDED   A 
RESTORATION    OF   JOSEPHUS. 


BY   REV.    SMITH    B.    GOODENOW,    A.    M., 

Aiithor  of  ''Tlie  Pilgri»i  Faith  Maintained ;''  ''^Lmnortality  and  the 
Doom  of  Sin;"   ''Inspired  Truthfulness  of  the  Original  Scriptures  "  etc"- 


FLEMING   H.   REVELL   COMPANY, 

New  York,  Chicago,  Toronto. 

1896. 


< 


SOME   OTHER   TREATISES 

Auxiliai-y  to  this  work,  by 
the  same  author. 


The  Classic   Chronology. 
The  Early   Christian   Chronicles. 


The   Hisfory  of  the   Christian   Era. 


The   Adjustment   of   Eras. 


Cycles,    Epacts,    Equino.xes,    etc. 


Copyriglit,  i8g6,  by  Smith  B.  Goodenow,  P>attle  Creek,  Iowa. 


INTRODUCTION. 


There  is  a  measure  of  truth  iu  the  sentiment  of  Horace  Bushnell, 
that  "  Every  man's  hfe  is  a  plan  of  God."  At  least  to  any  one  who 
has  from  youth  devoted  himself  to  the  service  of  his  Maker  there  is  a 
consolation  in  feeling,  that  everything  down  to  old  age,  however  mys- 
terious the  Providence,  has  ministered  to  the  achievement  of  that 
service. 

The  pi^esent  writer  was  led  from  his  boyhood,  at  14  years  of  age,  in 
the  City  of  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  under  the  venerated  Charles  G. 
Finney,  in  A.  D.  1831,  to  consecrate  himself,  soul  and  body,  for  life, 
to  the  work  of  the  Master,  and  the  vindication  of  his  truth.  Being 
beset  with  opposition,  frequent  lone  hours  of  devotion  on  the  neigh- 
boring hills  were  solaced  by  gazing  into  the  stars  and  repeating  all 
through  that  wonderful  hymn  (then  just  produced): 

"Jesus,  I  my  cross  have  taken, 
All  to  leave  and  follow  thee; 
Naked,  poor,  despised,  forsaken, 
Thou  from  hence  my  all  shalt  be. 

Go,  then,  earthly  fame  and  treasure  ! 
Come,  disaster,  scorn  and  pain  ! 
In  thy  service  pain  is  pleasure, 
With  thy  favor  loss  is  gain." 

Has  the  omen  proved  true? 

He  forthwith  found  himself  engaged  with  a  corjjs  of  S.  S.  workers 
and  others  in  various  Old  Testament  studies  connected  with  Moses 
and  the  Jewish  kings.  The  chronological  investigations  and 
manuscripts  then  evolved,  before  the  age  of  15  and  16,  have  been  of 
service  to  this  day.  And  the  result  was  a  ladies'  education  society 
formed  in  the  church  and  the  youthful  investigator  started  by  them 
through  a  course  for  the  ministry. 

Never  did  the  fervor  of  that  first  zeal  for  God's  truth  abate.  And 
the  boj'  thus  set  apart  by  hallowed  sanctions  for  the  search  and  de- 
fense of  God's  word,  has  never  forgotten  to  use  all  his  natural  faculty 
and  acquired  scholarship  in  elucidating  and  magnifying  the  Book  Di- 
vine. Whatever  vicissitudes  and  disappointments  have  attended  the 
ministerial  work  in  general,  an  unseen  hand  has  led;  and  most  of  the 
unspent  energy  which  others  gave  to  vacation  pastimes  and  promis- 
cuous literature,  was  for  fift}'  years  spent  in  delving  in  remote 
libraries,  copying  voluminous  masses  of  material  from  different  lan- 
guages, and  searching  out  abstruse  and  difficult  points.  Thus  the 
youthful  bent  was  pushed  into  the  enthusiastic  work  of  a  lifetime; 


4  INTRODUCTION 

and  what  was  represented  b}'  most  as  a  very  uncertain  and  unprofit- 
able study,  was  found  to  develop  into  a  research  of  untold  intei^est  and 
value. 

The  writer  was  early  impressed  very  strongly  with  the  fact  that 
the  coming  contest  over  the  Bible  would  center  about  the  question  of 
its  historical  truthfulness;  and  he  could  not  fail  to  see,  that  the  ques- 
tion of  truthfulness  would  turn  largely  upon  the  chronological  certi- 
tude of  the  dates  given.  To  that  point  he  has  bent  his  energies,  and 
he  has  reached  the  most  convincing  conclusions.  Today,  when  the  onset 
has  really  come,  and  the  Old  Testament  veracity  is  on  all  hands  as- 
sailed, the  chronological  results  here  reached  find  their  use,  and  serve 
as  a  breast-work  against  the  tide  of  archaeological  assault,  which 
threatens  to  make  havoc  of  the  Old  Testament  history.  As  the  New 
Testament  has  signally  won  in  the  chronological  struggle,  so  the  Old 
Scriptures  are  destined  to  win.  The  research  thus  begun  in  boyhood, 
is  thus  proving  the  sure  determiner  of  faith  in  old  age.  Was  it  not  in 
the  plan  ? 

When  we  pushed  with  zest  into  the  datings  of  Scripture,  we  were 
surprised  to  find  almost  everybody  casting  reproach  upon  the  study, 
as  trivial  and  of  little  account.  From  the  little  interest  taken  in  the 
subject,  and  from  the  vague  and  irrational  methods  of  inquiry 
adopted,  it  came  to  pass,  that  very  defective  results  were  reached, 
and  this  led  to  reproach  upon  the  whole  investigation.  A  vast  variety 
of  different  results  were  claimed,  where  sober  sense  should  have 
shown  but  a  single  interpretation  possible;  and  Bible  datings  were 
represented  as  a  matter  of  very  great  uncertainty.  As  long  ago  as  in 
the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  of  1858  (p.  289),  there  was  such  a  representation 
of  Bible  Chronology,  as  if  it  were  a  perfect  bank  of  fog.  Since  then, 
various  similar  articles  have  been  published;  and  within  a  few  years 
lattei^ly,  there  have  appeared  labored  treatises  (by  men  otherwise 
sound  in  the  faith),  vainly  trying  to  make  the  chronology  of  Gen.  v 
and  xi,  to  be  no  chronology  at  all,  but  only  undated  genealogical  tables! 
(See  the  Bib.  Sacra,  1873,  p.  323,  and  i8go,  p.  285.) 

One  aim  and  result  of  our  work  is,  to  scatter  all  these  illusory 
notions  concerning  the  uncertainty  of  Bible  datings,  (which  in  general 
arise  from  very  superficial  study  of  the  subject),  and  to  convince  the 
Bible  student,  how  sure  and  determinate  a  matter  Scripture  chron- 
ology.is.  As  a  basis  for  all,  the  date  of  Christ's  death,  as  on  Friday, 
April  7th,' A.  D.  30,  is  found  to  be  sure  and  unmistakable,  and  now 
generally  agreed  upon:  instead  of  being  assigned  to  almost  every 
other  year  but  that,  as  was  the  case  when  this  work  was  undertaken. 
The  nativity,  as  near  the  beginning  of  B.  C.  4,  together  with  all  the 
other  N.  T.  dates,  we  have  here  taking  their  definite  position, — in 
place  of  the  nmltiplied,  vague  and  erroneous  figures  commonly  given 
fifty  years  ago. 


INTRODUCTION  5 

Then  follows  the  Old  Testament  dating,  assuredly  started  with  B. 
C.  587,  as  the  time  of  Nebuchednezzar's  capture  of  Jerusalem  (not 
588,  as  put  by  Usher);  whence  the  Jewish  kings  are  easily  seen  to  date 
ijack,  first  133  years  to  B.  C.  720  at  the  capture  of  Samaria — and  then 
254  years  more  to  the  death  of  Solomon  in  B.  C.  974— and  37  years 
more  to  the  founding  of  the  temple  in  the  4th  year  of  Solomon,  B.  C. 
ion;  a  total  of  (133+254+37=)  424  years  from  the  capture  of  Jerusa- 
lem back  to  the  founding  of  the  temple,  or  (67+133+254+37=)  491 
years  from  the  second  temple  in  B.  C.  520,  back  to  the  first  temple  in 
B.  C.  ion,  just  as  given  by  Josephus  as  well  as  the  Scriptures. 

All  this  is  made  so  plain  and  sure,  by  the  many  unmistakable  dates 
and  cross  dates  given,  interlocking  in  ever}'  way,  that  by  this  simple 
and  certain  method  of  self  adjustment,  the  Bible  Chronology  is  made 
indisputable  back  to  the  founding  of  the  temple  in  the  4th  year  of  Sol- 
omon, as  being  in  B.  C.  ion  (not  1012,  as  Usher's  B.  C.  588  instead  of 
587  for  Jerusalem's  destruction  makes  it.)  This  date  for  Solomon's 
Temple  may  be  considered  as  perfectly  assured  in  the  Bible.  And 
the  attempt  of  archgeologists  to  construct  from  the  Assyrian  Eponym 
Canon  another  chronology  of  the  kings,  40  or  50  years  later  than  that 
of  Scripture,  is  thus  shown  to  leave  Bible  Chronology  itself  untouched. 
The  true  Bible  Chronology  of  human  history  back  to  the  founding  of 
Solomon's  Temple,  as  in  B.  C.  ion,  is  fixed  and  assured. 

The  time  from  Solomon's  Temple  back  to  the  Exodus,  is  the  first 
interval  where  we  come  to  any  scriptural  doubt;  but  careful  studj' 
shows  the  uncertainty  to  be  much  less  than  supposed.  The  I  Kings 
vi:  I,  probably  covers  "the  480th  year"  of  actual  reig7t,  excluding  loo 
years  of  foreign  subjugation  deemed  unworthy  of  recognition.  This  is 
made  probable  by  the  j8o  years  reckoning  of  the  New  Testament, 
(Acts  xiii:  17-21);  and  it  reaches  almost  a  certainty,  when  we  find 
Josephus  and  all  the  early  fathers,  both  Jewish  and  Christian,  giving 
only  the  longer  interval,  with  no  allusion  to  the  shorter  now  found  in 
I  Ki.  vi:  I. 

Most  likely,  the  "480th  "  is  a  copyist's  variation  or  addition  to  the 
previous  reading,  taken  from  the  margin  as  an  explanation  of  the  orig- 
inal value  intended,  which  was  "  580  years  "  (expressed  or  more  prob- 
ably understood).  * 

*  There  might  be  a  single  copyist's  error  here  or  there  in  Scripture; 
and  indeed  we  know  for  a  certainty,  that  there  is  occasionally  a  cor- 
ruption of  a  date  or  number.  But  there  could  not  be  any  such  %vhole- 
sale  corruption  of  the  dates  generally  as  the  Assyriologists  ascribe  to 
the  history  of  the  Jewish  kings.  What  they  call  harnionizing  Scrip- 
ture with  Assyriology,  is  rather  a  demolition  of  the  Bible  to  niake  way 
for  alleged  Assyriology.  If  the  Scripture  is  so  corrupt  as  they  make  it, 
(z.  e.,  in  most  of  its  dates),  then  it  is  no  true  history,  and  is  not  to  be 
believed  at  all. 


6  INTRODUCTION 

Thus  Scripture  is  made  consistent  with  itself  (in  Acts  and  Judges 
as  compared  with  I  Ki.  vi:  i);  and  the  Exodus  is  carried  to  B.  C.  1591 
(instead  of  Usher's  1491).  This  is  more  consistent  with  the  monu- 
ments, than  are  the  anti-scriptural  theories  of  the  Egyptologists  at 
present  current,  which  put  down  the  Exodus  to  about  B.  C.  1300. 

The  interval  from  the  Exodus  back  to  the  birth  of  Abram  is  very 
plainly  (430+75=)  505  years;  making  the  birth  of  Abram  to  be  in 
B.  C.  2096,  in  place  of  Usher's  1996.  Thus  far  back  Bible  Chronology 
is  remarkably  simple  and  sui^e.  The  preceding  Diluvian  Chronology 
(post-  and  pre-diluvian),  adds  to  this, either  in  the  Hebrew  (+352-I-1656), 
making  4104  B.  C.  for  the  creation,  or  in  the  Greek  of  Josephus 
(-)-992-|-2256),  making  the  creation  B.  C.  5344.  With  the  Hebrew  B.  C. 
4104,  the  human  race  is  s/x  thousand  years  old  in  A.  D.  1897,  but  with 
the  Greek,  the  human  race  was  seven  thousand  year's  old,  somewhere 
from  A.  D.  1471  to  1721,  according  to  variations  of  the  Septuagint. 

This  great  divergence  in  the  copies  as  to  the  full  age  of  the  world, 
may  have  been  providentially  allowed  (by  the  corrupt  copying  either  of 
the  Hebrew  or  of  the  Greek  text),  for  the  very  purpose  of  preventing 
any  sure  fixing  prematurely  of  prophetic  "times  and  seasons"  (pur- 
posely hidden,  though  told,  Acts  1:7);  while  at  the  same  time  giving 
that  exactness  of  dating  so  characteristic  of  the  Bible,  which  vouches 
for  the  history  as  truthful  and  leaves  the  total  assured  within  a  few- 
hundred  years. 

This  work  is  intended  to  supply 

A  LONG  EXISTING  WANT, 
— to  furnish 

A  BIBLE  TEXT-BOOK, 

indispensable  to  every  thorough  student  of  Scripture.* 


*  "With  nearly  all  existing  books  in  this  department,  the  weakest 
part  is  the  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  data.  Men  put  in  their 
best  work  for  deciphering  some  obscure  inscription  that  has  been  dug 
up  somewhere,  and  in  deciding  what  inferences  may,  and  what  may 
not,  be  drawn  from  it;  but  they  fancy  that  they  know  without  much 
study  what  the  Old  Testament  says.  So  they  heedlessly  accept  some 
crude  traditional  interpretation  of  an  Old  Testament  statement,  in- 
stead of  looking  freshly  and  keenly  to  find  out  what  the  statement 
actually  is.  The  extent  to  which  existing  criticism  is  vitiated  by  this 
process  is  appalling.  *  *  *  In  the  department  of  Old  Testament 
study,  such  (thorough)  work  is  now  more  needed  than  work  of  any 
other  kind."     {Sunday  School  Times,  Sep.  28,  iSg^,  p.  620.) 


CONTENTS. 

Bible  Chronology  may,  for  convenience,  be  divided  into  seven  por- 
tions, denoted  by  the  letters  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  G,  as  follows: 

A.  From  Creation  to  the  Flood. 

B.  From  the  Flood  to  the  Birth  of  Abram. 

C.  From  the  Birth  of  Abram  to  the  Exodus. 

D.  From  the  Exodus  to  the  Founding  of  Solomon's  Temple. 

E.  From  the  Founding  to  the  Burning  of  the  Temple. 

F.  From  the  Burning  of  the  Temple  to  the  Christian  Era. 

G.  From  the  Christian  Era  to  the  Close  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  our  examination  of  the  subject,  we  work  hackivard,   from   the 

most  obvious  to  the  most  obscure,  beginning  with  the  Crucifixion  and 
ending  with  the  Creation,  as  follows: 

Period  G.      The  Ne^u   Testament. 
Part  I.     The  Date  of  Christ's  Death,  historically  and  astronomically 
fixed,  on  Friday,  April  7th,  A.  D.  30,  §  i. 
Chap.     I.     Historical  Review,  'i  4. 

1.  Historical  Age,  \  4. 

2.  Equinoctial  Cycle  Age,  \\\. 

3.  Later  Theory  Age,  etc.,  \  17. 
Chap.  II.     Astronomical  Demonstration,  §  18. 

1.  The  State  of  the  Case,  ?  18. 

2.  The  Means  of  Adjustment;  Lunar  Cycles,  §23. 

3.  The  Lunar  Calculations;  Corrections,  I  ^^i- 

4.  The  Data  Combined,  §  39;  The  True  Date,  ?  44. 

5.  Important  Results,  I  48. 

Appendix. 

A.  Christ's  Resurrection  on   Sunday,  §  56;  Crucifixion  on   Fri- 

day, ?  57. 

B.  The  Jewish  Months  were  Lunar,  |  67. 

C.  Ancient  Lunar  Cycles  Exhibited,  ?  73. 

D.  Was  the  Crucifixion  on  the  14th  or  15th  Nisan  ?  I  80. 

E.  Corrected  Reckoning  of  the  N.  T.  Lunar  Dates,  §  90. 
Part  II.     Sundry  New  Testament  Dates,'?  95. 

Chap.     L     Christ's  Baptism,  I  95;  the  Nativity,  §  96. 

Cyrenius  Governor,  I  99;  Day  of  Nativity,  \  loi. 

Pauline  Dates,  I  102;  N.  T.  Events,  ?  106. 

Roman  Emperors,  ?  107;  Jerusalem  Taken,  A.    D.  70, 
?  109;  Local  Rulers,  ?  no. 
Chap.  IT.     Women  at  the  Tomb;  a    Harmony  of  the  Resurrection, 

Taki.e  or  Bible  Dates,  S  120. 


»  CONTENTS 

Old  Testament  Chronology;  the  certainty  and  importance  of  it,  p.  102. 
Assyriology  and  Egyptology,  p.  104. 

Period  F.      The  Exile  and  After. 
From  the  Captivity  to  the  Christian  Era. 
Part  I.     The  Intervening  Dates,  \  i;  Ptolemy's  Canon,  I  i;  Josephus 
and  the  Maccabees,    §  3;  The   Year  B.  C.  163,   \  5;  The 
Detailed    Reigns,    \  9;  Corroborations,   5^  12;   Back  to  the 
Captivity,  §  14. 

Part  II.  Jerusalem  Destroyed  by  Nebuchadnezzar  B.  C.  587,  not 
588,  g  15;  Corrected  View  of  Jer.,  Hi:  28-30,  I  20;  Script- 
ure Evidence,  §  26;  The  Sabbatic  Year.  §  29;  Further 
Confirmation,  §  32;  Origin  of  the  Error,  §  36. 

Period  E.      The  Kings. 
Part  I.     From  Solomon's  Temple  to  the  Captivity,  'i  i. 
Chap.  I.     The  Capture  of  Samaria,  \  2. 

Chap.  II.  Hezekiah's  14th  year;  Harmony  of  Isa.  xxxvi:  i,  §7; 
Assyrian  Assaults,  §  11;  Isaiah,  ch.  20,  21,  \  15;  Sen- 
acherib's  Account,  ?  18. 

Part  II.     Bible  Chronology  of  the  Kings. 

Chap.  I.  The  Bible  Dates,  I  21;  Table  of  Synchronisms,  §  25;  Ex- 
planations, \  27. 

Chap.  II.  The  Bible  Method,  I  34;  But  One  Bible  Method,  §  42; 
Corroborations,  \  45. 

Chap.  III.  Jubilee  Reckonings,  §49;  Given  Jubilee  Years,  §  56; 
Given  Sabbatic  Years,  §  65. 

Chap.  IW      Unfounded  Theorizings,  \  75-80. 

Part  III.     Assyriology  and   the  Jewish  Kings,    I  81;   First  Division, 
Pul  and  Ahaz. 
Chap.  I.     Who  was  "  Pul"  of  Assyria  ?    \  82. 
(i)     Vul-nirari,  I  86. 

(2)  Assur-daan,  I  89. 

(3)  Tiglath-pileser,  §  93. 

Chap.  II.     "This  is  that  king  Ahaz,"  I  100;   Interregnum  in  Israel, 

I  109;  Second  Division,  Aliab  and  Jehu. 
Chap.  III.    The  Inscriptions,  \  11 1. 

{a)     As  to  Jehu,  I  114;  [b)  as  to  Ahab,  I  115. 
Chap.  IV.    The  Surroundings,  §  120; 

The  Ahab  and  Jehu  Interval,  I  126; 

The  Course  of  Events,  I  128. 

Conclusion,  I  132. 


CONTENTS 

Part  IV.     Comparative    Reliability    of    the    Jewish    and    the 
Chronology,  §  133. 
Chap.      I.     Assyriology  and  the  Bible,  §  133. 

1.  As  to  Consecutiveness,  §  138. 

2.  As  to  Accuracy  of  Reporting,  §  143. 

3.  As  to  Certainty  of  Interpretation,  \  149. 
Chap.    II.     Tyrian  History  and  the  Bible,  §  151. 

Chap.  III.     Egyptian    History    and   the  Jewish    Kings,    §  159;    The 
Olympic  Era,  \  164;  Astronomical  Allusions,  |  168. 


Period  D.      The  Judges. 
Part      I.     From  the  Exodus  to  Solomon's  Temple,  \  i. 

Chap.  I.  '  The  Interval  of  580  years,  \  i;  The  Period  of  "450 
years,"  \,  2;  Period  of  the  Judges,  §  5;  Confirmation, 
I  8;  Ancient  Authorities,  \  14;  The  Church  Fathers, 
Chap.  II.  Attempted  Defenses  of  the  "480th  year,"  I  21; 
Overlapping  the  Reigns,  \  24;  The  Text  of  Acts  xiii:  20, 
^27;  "Twenty  Years,"  I  Sam.  vii:  2,  §32;  Other 
Points,  §  35. 

Appendix. 

A.  The  "4th  year"  of  Solomon,  ^^41. 

B.  The  Astronomical  Date,  ^  44. 

C.  Attempts  to  make  "480"  years,  J?  47. 

D.  That  "  Canonical  Formula,"  i^  54." 

Part  II.     Origin  of  the  "480th  year"  Reading,  §58;  The   "612"  in 
Josephus,  §  63;  The  Original  980,  §65;  The  "440th"  of  the 
Septuagint,  g  71;  The  "480th"  of  the  Hebrew,  §  78. 
Appendix. 

A.  Josephus  and  the  Priest  Record,  §  85. 

B.  Independence  Era  of  Ehud,  J^  88. 

C.  Israel's  Stay  in  Haran,  §  96. 

D.  Corruption  of  the  Scripture  Text,  §  99. 

E.  Reliability  of  Josephus,  §  100. 
Part  III.     The  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus,  I  loi. 

Chap.      I.     Egyptian  Chronology,  §  loi. 

Chap.    II.     Theories  of  the  Exodus,  §  109;  The  i8th  Dynasty,  §  113; 

Probable  Exodus  Date,  ^  117. 
Chap.  III.     Meneptah  as  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus,  §  120. 
Chap.  IV.     Thotmes  IV,  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus,  ^  130-149. 


Pei'iod  C. —  The  Patriarchs. 
Part  I.       From  the  Birth  of  Abram  to  the  Exodus,  §  i 
The  "400 years,"  §  3;  Generations,  §  9. 
The  Census  of  Israel,  ^  14. 


10  CONTENTS 

Part    II.     When  Was  Joseph  Sold  ?  §  19. 

Order  of  Events,  §  20;  Argument,  §  22;  Results,  §  25. 


Periods  A,  B. — Diluvian  Chronology. 
Part  I.       The  Differing  Texts,  §  i. 

Chap.      I.     Is  the  Hebrew  Corrupt?  §  9. 
Chap.    II.     Process  of  Corruption,  t^  21. 
Chap.  III.     Is  the  Septuagint  Correct  ?§  29. 
Chap.  IV.     Net  Result,  §38. 
Part  II.       Chronology  of  Gen.  v  and  xi,  §  44. 

The  Non-Chronology  Theories,  §  48. 
Gen.  V  and  xi  are  Genuine  Chronology,  §  58. 
Part  III.      Primeval  Man,  ^561. 

Two  Periods  of  Creation,  §64;  The  First  Man,  §70. 
Part  IV.       History  and  Prophecy,  \  72. 
Chap.      I.     Age  of  the  World,  §  72. 
End  of  6000  Years,  §  78. 
Chap.    11.     Prophetic  Datings,  §84;   "Trodden  Under   Foot,"  § 
The  "2300  days  "  or  years,  §94. 


Restoration  of  Josephus. 
Part.      I.     The  Primary  Mistake,  g  4;  The  Occasion  of  it,  §  10;  Cor- 
rection of  tire  57  years,  g  14;  Chronology  of  the  "War," 

ii   16. 

Part  II.  Jewish  Datings  Expounded,  §21;  The  "70  years"  Cap- 
tivity, §25;  The  Priest  Record's  "414  years,"  §31;  Its 
"466  years,"  §37;  Its  "612  years,"  §44. 

Part  III.  Josephus'  One  Consistent  System,  §48;  Josephus'  "470 
years,'  g  54;  The  Caption  Datings,  §62;  Josephus' 
Whole  Chronology,  g  69. 

Supplementary  Note. 

Appendix. 

A.  Reliability  of  Josephus,  §  74  (Period  D,  §  100.) 

B.  The  View  of  Jacob  Schwartz,  §  75. 

C.  Scriptui-e  and  Josephus  Compared,  ^  80. 

D.  The  Numbers  in  the  "  Jewish  War,"  g  83. 

E.  The  Finished  Capturing,  g  87. 

F.  How  the  Critics  Differ,  i^  89. 

G.  Josephus'  "592  years,"  §90. 
H.  The  Davidic  Era,  §95. 

I.     The  Captions  Amended,  ^97. 

J.     Josephus'  One  Consistent  System,  i^  101-103. 


PERIOD  G-THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


PART  I. 

The  Date  of  Christ's  Death 

Historically  and  Astronomically  Fixed  on    Friday,   April    jth^ 
A.  D.  30. 


i  -I.  "I  deteiniined,"  sa3's  Paul,  "not  to  know  anything  among 
you,  save  Jesus  Christ,  and  Him  crucified."  And  that  death  scene 
of  Calvary  is  still  the  great  central  theme  of  all  our  thoughts  and 
teachings.  How  important  that  we  be  able  to  speak  of  it,  not  as  a 
story  located  at  about  such  a  time  in  the  world's  progress,  but  as  an 
actual  event,  of  assured  occuri'ence,  at  its  own  proper  and  unmistaka- 
ble date.  That  crucifixion  day  was  a  day  by  itself,  the  like  of  which 
this  fallen  world  has  never  beheld.  It  was  in  the  counsels  of  God 
marked  out  from  eternal  ages  for  this  particular  transaction,  and  to 
eternal  ages  it  will  be  commemorated  as  the  birthday  of  human 
redemption. 

§  2.  To  treat  the  Messiah's  passion  only  as  belonging  sivneivhere 
within  a  space  of  four  or  five  years,  as  the  church  so  long  has  been 
doing,*  savors  too  much  of  mythologic  tradition  for  this  scientific  and 
sceptical  age,  when  "many  run  to  and  fro,  and  knowledge  is  in- 
C7'easedy  God  has  suffered  darkness,  in  this  as  in  other  matters,  to 
creep  over  His  Zion  during  the  long  ages  of  her  wilderness  wandering: 
but  now.  as  the  new  day  of  her  triumph  begins  to  dawn,  the  better 
light  of  her  earlier  days  may  be  expected  again  to  break  forth. 

'i  3.  Moved  by  these  considerations,  over  forty  years  ago  we  set 
about  this  investigation;  and  here  is  the  result  then  reached  (now 
recopied).f  Soon  after  that  date,  Weisler's  like  result  in  Geimany 
reached  this  country,  that  being  the  first  promulgation  of  A.  D.  30; 
but  this  investigation  was  made  in  entire  ignorance  of  that.  Their 
independent  concurrence  is  a  confirmation  of  the  agreeing  date  found, 
April  7th,  A.  D.  30. 


*Now  (in  A.  D.  1855),  the  Vulgar  Chronology  of  Usher  makes  it 
April  3,  A.  D.  33.  The  great  system  of  Hales  puts  it  March  27,  A.  D. 
31.  The  elaborate  work  of  Clinton  sets  it  April  15,  A.  D.  29.  All 
dates  but  the  true  one  have  been  confounding  the  minds  of  men. 

f  This  treatise  was  a  revision  made  in  A.  D.  1855,  by  request  of 
Prof.  Edwards  A.  Park,  D.  D.,  editor,  for  the  purpose  of  publication 
in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 


13  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

We  will  first  give  an  Historical  Review  of  New  Testament  dating; 
to  be  followed  by  an  Astronomical  Demonstration  of  the  crucifixion 
date. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Historical   Review. 

§4.  Our  examination  of  history*  has  developed  the  following 
facts: 

(I.)  The  Historical  Age.  The  earliest  historical  dating  of  the  cru- 
cifixion which  has  come  down  to  us,  outside  the  New  Testament,  is  the 
testimony  of  Clemens  of  Alexandria  (A.  D.  189-205),  concerning  the 
teachings  of  Basilidesf  (A.  D.  134).  Clemens  tells  us,  that  some  of 
Basilides'  disciples  "assign  the  passion  of  Christ  to  the  i6th  year  of 
Tiberius,— some  putting  it  on  the  25th  day  of  Pharmonti."  This  "i6th 
year  of  Tiberius,"  reckoned  from  the  death  of  Augustus  (on  Aug.  19, 
A.  D.  14),  fixes  the  crucifixion  in  the  spring  of  A.  D.  30;  and  "the  25th 
of  Pharmonti"  in  the  Egyptian  rotary 'year  was  then  April  7th 
Julian:):,,  which  was  a  Friday,  and  was  at  the  Paschal  full  moon  that 
year,  as  we  shall  prove  astronomically. 

*  Fully  given  in  a  preliminary  essay. 

f  Basilides  was  a  Gnostic  Christian,  and  therefore  not  considered 
thoroughly  orthodox;  but  his  testimony  as  to  facts  is  unimpeached. 

X  The  language  of  Clemens  is  this:  "The  passion  of  Christ  some 
of  them,  (the  followers  of  Basilides)  assign  to  the  i6th  year  of  Tiberius, 
the  25th  day  of  Phamenoth,  some  put  it  the  25th  of  Pharmonti  (phar- 
monti ke),  others  the  19th,  some  say  the  24th  or25th."  {Clem.  Strom.,  /, 
P.  340.) 

Now  in  the  i6th  of  Tiberius  (A.  D.  30)  the  rotary  i  Thoth  or  new- 
year  day  of  the  Egyptians  came  on  the  i6th  day  of  August,  Julian, 
(having  moved  from  Aug.  20  in  the  16  years  since  Augustus'  death, 
and  fi^om  Aug.  29  in  the  52  years  since  his  introduction  of  ihejixed 
year,  Aug.  29,  B.  C.  23).  And  as  the  Egyptian  year  consisted  of  12 
thirty-day  months  with  5  days  added  at  the  end,  therefore,  its  rotary 
months  now  began  at  the  Julian  Aug.  16,  July  12,  June  12,  May  13, 
April  13,  March  14;  and  the  25th  of  this  8th  month  "  Pharmonti"  was 
(March  14+24=38—31=)  April  7th. 

It  would  not  thus  come  on  16  Tib.  after  A.  D.  30,  nor  on  April  7  in 
any  year  after  A.  D.  31;  for  the  next  year  (A.  D.  32  bissextile)  i  Thoth 
changed  to  Aug.  15th.  And  it  could  not  thus  come  on  Friday,  April 
7th,  except  in  the  year  30,  the  i6th  year  of  Tiberius  after  the  death  of 
Augustus, — as  Clemens  here  gives  the  early  tradition  derived  through 
Basilides.  So  that,  in  this  number  he  is  evidently  giving  the  passion- 
date  originally  assigned;  it  being  (as  he  adds)  by  some  called  "the 
24th  or  25th"  (April  6th  or  7th),  according  as  they  dated  "  the  pas- 
sion "  from  the  crucifixion  Friday,  or  (like  Theopliilus  Caes.,  A.  D. 
196)  from  the  betrayal  by  Judas  the  day  before. 

We  therefore  suppose  all  these  day-dates  named  to  have  originated 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  13 

§  5.  Here  then  we  have  a  dating  of  our  Lord's  passion  historically 
on  April  7th,  A.  D.  30,  in  accordance  with  the  facts.  This  A.  D.  30, 
while  the  i6th  year  of  Tiberius  (after  Augustus)  was  the  year  78  of  the 
Caesars,  from  the  close  of  B.  C.  49,  when  Julius  Caesar,  having  crossed 
the  Rubicon,  gained  possession  of  Rome.  The  Christian  fathers  gen- 
erally until  the  4th  century  adhered  to  this  reckoning  of  Christ's  death, 
as  in  the  i6th  year  after  Augustus,  or  the  year  78  of  the  Cssars, 
which  means  A.  D.  30. 

§  6.  Eusebius  Pamphilus  (A.  D.  308-340)  tells  a  story  which  fixes 
the  same  date.*      The  day-date  April  7th  (or  Egyptian  "  Pharmonti 

from  that  as  the  first  and  true  tradition,  somewhat  as  follows: 

The  rotary  year  having  fully  given  way  to  the  fixed  year  of  Egypt, 
— it  seems  from  Clemens  that  the  passion-day  dating  had  become  mis- 
understood and  perverted.  For,  as  the  i  Thoth  was  stopped  and  fixed 
by  Augustus  when  it  was  at  Aug.  29,  soon  after  his  conquest  of  Egypt, 
by  the  insertion  of  the  Julian  leap-day  then  recently  established,  (by 
means  of  which  the  5  extra  days  preceding  each  Thoth  were  properly 

increased  to  6  every  4th  }'ear), therefore,  this ^xaf  ft^ar  beginning 

Aug.  29,  was  after  52  years  13  days  later  than  the  rotary  year,  begin- 
ning Aug.  16,  A.  D.  30.  And  the  passion-date,  April  6,  7,  (or  Phar- 
monti 24,  25,  rofajy),  was  thought  by  "  some"  to  mean  13  days  later, 
April  19,  20,  (or  Pharmonti  24,  2'-^,  fixed.) 

This  mistake  made  by  some  was  in  forgetfulness  of  the  old  rotary 
year;  which,  although  ended  by  authority  in  Egypt  just  before  the 
Christian  era,  as  we  saw,  yet  had  still  continued  to  be  used  among 
Jews  and  others,  as  appears  in  this  passion-date,  in  Censorinus,  etc. 
For  the  Jews,  so  soon  afterward  dispersed,  had  not  yet  worked  out  of 
the  365  day  reckoning  long  since  borrowed  from  their  Egyptian  neigh- 
bors, into  the  Julian  365X-day  reckoning  so  lately  imposed  upon  the 
world  by  their  Roman  conquerors. 

But  after  the  Alexandrines  with  their  long-fixed  year  had  vitiated 
the  Palestine  passion-date,  as  if  meaning  April  19,  20,  (instead  of  April 
6,  7) — then  some  (it  seems)  thinking  that  altogether  too  late,  put  back 
the  passion  by  conjecture  a  month  earlier,  /.  c. ,  at  March  21  (or 
"  Phamenoth  25  "  instead  of  "  Pharmonti  25  ");  just  as  it  is  afterward 
given  by  Epiphanius  (A.  D.  4C0),  also  Proterius  (A.  D.  457),  and  Victor 
(A.  D.  566).  Others,  finding  (by  the  lunar  cycle  then  in  use)  that  in 
the  i6th  of  Tib.  (A.  D.  30).  the  April  19,  20,  (as  w^ell  as  Mar.  20,  21), 
came  on  the  wrong  day  of  the  week,  moved  back  the  passion-date  to 
Friday,  April  14,  (or  "  Pharmonti  ig  "  instead  of  "  25  ").  Those  days 
were  loosely  assigned  a  century  after  the  event,  without  calculation  as 
to  lunar  requirements,  in  that  age  of  rude  cycle  knowledge. 

Such  was  the  state  of  things  as  Clemens  found  them  after  Basili- 
des,  in  the  second  century,  reporting  them  to  us  as  above — not  as  his 
own  speculations,  but  as  traditions  handed  down  from  those  before 
him.  And  thus  was  the  true  passion-day  confounded  and  lost,  its  sub- 
stitutes leading  on  to  the  confusing  and  losing  afterward  of  the  true 
year-date  also.  For,  the  dates,  April  14  and  March  21,  as  being  (ac- 
cording to  the  same  lunar  cycle)  near  the  full  moon  of  15  Tib.  (A.  D, 
29)  and  17  Tib.  (A.  D.  31)  respectively,  encouraged  the  subsequent 
cycle  assignment  of  the  passion  to  those  respective  years. 

*  The  legend  is  this:     "After  Christ's  resurrection  from  the  dead, 


14  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

25"),  was  soon  lost  through  a  confounding  of  the  fixed  with  the  ro- 
tary years  of  Egypt,  as  seen  in  tiie  note  just  given.  And  the  year 
itself  after  a  time  became  confused  in  ways  which  we  proceed  to  no- 
tice. At  first  the  Christians  had  the  nativity  rightly  ^^  years  before 
A.  D.  30,  or  4  years  before  our  Chri'stian  era,  and  the  baptism  at  the 
beginning  of  A.  D.  27:*  which  was  "the  15th  year  of  Tiberius" 
(Lu.  iii:  i)  reckoned  from  his  joint  reign  with  Augustus. f  But  aft- 
erwards, mistaking  Luke's  "  15th  year  of  Tiberius"  as  if  meaning  the 
15th  year  after  Augustus'  death,  the  fathers  put  the  baptism  along  to 
A.  D.  29,  which  threw  along  the  nativitj'  also  to  be  only  2  years  be- 
fore our  A.  D.,  reducing  the  ministry  of  our  Lord  to  but  little  over  a 
year,:j:  and  his  whole  life  to  only  31  years.  || 


Judas  called  also  Thomas,  moved  thereto  by  Divine  impulse,  sent 
Thaddeus  to  Edessa  to  be  a  preacher  and  evangelist  of  the  doctrine 
of  Christ.  *  *  *  The  written  evidence  of  this  matter  we  have  out 
of  the  Office  of  Records  within  the  princely  city  of  Edessa,  in  which 
Agbarus  then  was  governor.  It  is  there  preserved  to  this  day  as  fol- 
lows [the  citation  ends] :  '  These  things  were  done  in  the  340th  year.' 
Which  also  we  have  translated  word  for  word  out  of  the  Syriac 
tongue."  [Eiiseh.  Eccle.  Hist.,  B.  /.,  cli.  ij.)  As  the  Edessenes  used 
the  Seleucic  Era,  making  their  year  i  equivalent  to  our  B.  C.  311  (as 
shown  in  the  previous  essay),  therefore,  this  year  340  closed  at  our 
A.  D.  30,  vvhere^  consequently,  they  must  have  assigned  the  cruci- 
fixion. Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  sto^y  here  related,  these  re- 
mote traditions  and  records  do  show  the  dates  early  assigned  to  New 
Testament  events;  thus  corroborating  the  astronomical  demonstration 
which  we  afterward  give.  (See  the  comments  of  Valerius  on  this 
passage  of  Eusebius,  Edit.  ]'a/.  Paris,  i6^g,  Caiiib.,  168 j.) 

*  Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch  (A.  D.  90-115),  the  second  in  suc- 
cession from  Peter,  and  himself  a  disciple  of  John,  says:  "  God  the 
Word  *  *  *  having  lived  in  the  world  tJnrr  drcadrs  of  years  was 
baptized,  and  having  preached  the  gospel  tJuw yrms  was  crucified." 
f^Coteh'-finits,  Patres  Apflst.)  This  is  called  spurious  l)\-  Clinton.  "  Me- 
lito,  wlu)  flourished  about  A.  D.  160-172,  calls  the  ministry  t/ure years. 
En  ti'  trictia  i/u-fa  to  haptisma.'"  {Apiid  RoiitJi.  Rclio-.  PairiDii,  Tom.  /, 
p.  iiji.)  Hij)])oh'tus  (A.  D.  220-226)  places  it  within  three  years."  (Id. 
p.  ij6.     See  Clinton's  Eas.  Koin.  Vol.  II,  p.  227.)     So  Origen. 

f  Luke  may  have  simply  antedated  the  reign  of  Tiberius  to  the 
previous  new  year,  as  was  the  way  of  Ptolemy's  Canon  and  other 
ancient  Chronicles;  and  he  may  then  have  numbered  inc/itsiTe/y,  reck- 
oning in  as  years  the  fractions  at  both  ends,  according  to  Jewish  cus- 
tom—  so  virtually  covering  a  joint  reign.  For  such  a  joint  reign  there 
is  ample  testimony  in  Roman  historians,  as  given  here,  in  I  95.  > 

X  No  one  in  view  of  the  Scripture  narrative,  could  ever  have 
given  so  short  a  ministr\-,  except  under  constraint  of  the  already  as- 
signed "16  Tib."  for  the  crucifixion  (compared  with  Lu.  iii:  i),  both 
taken  as  after  the  death  of  Augustus.  So  that,  this  traditional  "  16 
Tib."  could  be  made  no  later,  but  //ad  to  adhere  to  A.  D.  30. 

II  "Irenius  (A.  D.  197)  and  TertuUian  (A.  D.  214)  put  the  nativity 
in  U.  C.  751  or  [end  of]  B.  C.  3."     (Nates'  Tech.  C/iron.  on  Eras.)     So 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  15 

§  7.  Not  only  Clemens  Alex.  *,  but  also  Africanus,  the  first 
great  Christian  chronologistf  (A.  U.  200),  and  others,  kept  the  year 
to  the  i6th  of  Tiberius  (or  A.  D.  50).  The  shortened  life  of  Christ 
was  afterward  amended  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome  in  the  4th  century; 
so  as  to  make  the  ministry  over  3  years  and  the  life  of  Christ  over  32; 
with  the  baptism  and  passion  at  the  originally  assigned  places,  A.  D. 
27  and  30,  and  the  nativity  3  years  before  our  A.  D.X 

'i  8.  With  Julius  Africanus  (A.  D.  221)  was  fully  established  the 
vernal  reckoning  of  reigns,  as  beginning  with  the  March  after  their 

afterward  Photius  (A.  D.  860)  "  Veterum  multorum  opinio  fuit, 
Christum  uno  tantum  anno  praedicasse,  eoque  passum  fuisse.  Ex 
eorum  numero  fuit  Africanus,  ut  testatur  Hieronymus  in  ix  Dan. 
Quem  recte  ex  auctoritate  evangelica  Georgius  [Syncellus]  redarguit." 
{Petai'ius,  Be  Graec.  Eris,  Cap.  IV,  p.  1410.)  "  Eusebius  makes  the 
nativity  by  Africanus  to  be  2  years  before  A.  D."  (Dissert,  of 
Bredoi).  in  Syncel,  Vol.  II,  p.  6.)  In  his  work  Peri  Aniion,  Origen 
has  the  ministry  "a  year  and  a  few  months."  But  in  his  Cojii.  in 
Lucaiii,  he  departs  from  that  view;  and  in  \\\^  Adv.  Cel.,  he  reckons 
the  ministry'  between  2  and  3  years,  confiinning  the  same  in  his  Com.  in 
Mat.  "  If  he  began  the  year's  of  Tiberius,  as  was  the  custom  of  the 
ancient  Christians  and  others,  from  the  paschal  month  preceding,  the 
same  year  would  be  thought  the  i6th  of  Tib.  which  otherwise  was  the 
15th."  (I'etaT'ins.)  "  Gaudentius  (A.  D.  387)  allowed  only  i  year  to  the 
ministry."     [Clinton,  Fas.  Rom.  Vol.,  II,  Art.   ]'.) 

*  Clemens'  Alex,  not  only  gave  the  crucifixion  date  "  16  Tib."  as 
derived  from  Basilides  (see  before),  but  he  adhered  to  it  himself,  put- 
ting the  Ba]itism  at  the  "15th  Tib."  (A.  D.  29)  and  even  antedating 
ver)ially  the  15th  Tib.,  to  carrj-  back  the  baptism  to  the  spring  of  A. 
D.  28  (with  the  nativity  2  years  B.  C.  as  in  Africanus),  and  thus  allow 
2  years  of  ministry;  expressly  saying  that  from  th\?.  baptism  to  the  cap- 
ture of  Jerusalem  (in  A.  D.' 70)  "was  42  years  and  3  months."  All 
these  express  statements  of  Clemens  (Strom.  I,  p.  jio,  J40),  are  cited 
in  full  in  the  previous  essay.  Jerome  afterward  spoke  of  the  same 
"42  years"  of  preaching  and  warning  for  the  Jews,  from  the  baptism 
of  Christ  to  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem.  The  notion  of  some,  that 
it  was  the  16th  Tib.  (or  the  crucifixion)  which  Clemens  and  his  cotem- 
poraries  were  putting  in  A.  D.  28,  is  too  palpably  wrong  to  need  re- 
futation. 

f  Africanus  (A.  D.  221)  says  of  the  crucifixion:  ''IIos  een  olmnpiados 
sb'  etos  deuteron  Tiberion  de  Kaisaros  heegemonias  etos  ek-kaidekaton,"' 
[Olym.  202:  2,  the  i6th  of  Tiberius.]  'Chronograph,  lib.  ^  iti  Ejiseb. 
Demonst,  VII,  p.  jSq,  jgo.  Compare  Routh,  Vol.  II,  p.  187-igo.  So 
cited  in  Syncellus,  p.  323.  "  Christon  chronon  .  .  .  mechris  hek- 
tou  kai  drkatou  Tiberion  Kaisaros  hoper  een  0/umpiados  sb'  etos  deu- 
teron''; "  until  "  (the  beginning  of  the)  i6th  Tib.  postdated  \&xns\\y ,  and 
Olym.  202:  2,  antedated  vernally,.  as  both  beginning  with  i  Nisan  in 
March,  A.  D.  30.  This  vernal  chronology  of  Africanus  is  fully  shown 
in  the  previous  essay. 

X  One  year  was  lost  to  the  life  of  Christ  by  tlie  reckoning  of  Lu. 
iii:  z^,  as  meaning  "the  30th  year"  (ton  tfiakonta  eniauton.)  Athan- 
asins,  tom.  f,  p.  jjSd.    So  Bede  seems  to  explain  Dionysius;  and  so  Clin- 


16  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

real  start.*  So  that,  he  had  Augustus  as  beginning  March,  B.  C. 
43,  and  Tiberius  March,  A.  D.  15,  and  Vespasian  March,  A.  D.  70. 
He  thus  had  the  crucifixion  of  A.  D.  30,  at  the  beginning  of  his  "  i6th 
Tiberius,"  with  the  baptism  a  year  before,  and  the  nativity  31  years 
before,  at  2  full  years  B.  C,  where  he  placed  his  A,  M.  5500. f  And 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem  in  the  2nd  of  Vespasian,  he  thus  had  in  A. 
D.  71  (instead  of  the  true  70);  making  it  the  42nd  year  after  the  cruci- 
fixion (not  after  the  baptism  as  Clemens  had  it).:}:  This  vernal 
chronology  of  Africanus  was  followed  by  his  cotemporaries,  Tertul- 
lian  (A.  D.  214),  Hippolytus  (A.  D.  227),  Origen  (A.  D.  253),  and  many 
afterward. 

§  9.  It  has  been  supposed  that  Tertullian  has  an  earlier  crucifixion 
date  than  Africanus.  But,  using  a  suggestion  of  Petavius,  we  find  a 
substantial  agreement  between  them.  Tertullian,  having  the  same 
vernal  reckoning  as  Africanus,  locates  the  crucifixion  as  at  the  old 
Equinox  March  25  (of  A.  D.  30),  the  very  end  oi  "  15th  Tiberius  "  and 
the  ''  two  Gemini  "  consuls  thus  vernally  reckoned  as  reaching  to  the 
Equinox; II  while  Africanus  calls  it  the  beginning  of  the    "  i6th  Tibe- 

ton  seems  to  teach.  [Fas.  Rom.,  A.  D.  2g.)  That  the  chronology  of 
Eusebius  was  as  here  stated,  not  the  different  reckoning  often  ascribed 
to  him,  we  fully  show  in  the  previous  essay. 

*  The  well-assured  Vernal  Chronolog}'  of  the  Christian  fathers  is 
fully  set  forth  and  demonstrated  in  the  previous  essay.  (Contrast 
Ptolemy's  Canon,  here  ^  108.) 

f  Africanus  "commenced  his  years  A.  M.  from  the  paschal 
month,"  yet  "makes  the  baptism  to  be  in  the  consulship  of  the  two 
Gemini,  when  by  Luke  it  was  the  15th  of  Tiberius."  So  says  Petavius 
(Dissert,  de  Graec.  Eris.,  c.  ii:  in  op.  Euseb.i.  p.  1402).  Syncellus 
cites  Africanus  as  "by  agreeing  apostolical  tradition  putting  the 
incarnation  in  5501  A.  M.  [beginning],  while  numbering  the  passion 
5531  A.  M.  [ending],  and  having  about  31  years  to  Christ,  an  error  of 
2  years  too  little."  (See  in  Syncell.,  p.  6og,  614,  Vol.  xii:  Hist.  Byzant., 
and  m  Petai'ius,  Graec.  Eris,  ii:  p.  1402.  and  i7':  p.  1410.)  The  "about 
31  years  "  cover  5501-5531  inclusi7'e,  with  a  few  days  allowable  on  5500 
and  also  on  5532  (from  Nisan  i  to  14  of  A.  D.  30).  Hippolytus  has 
about  the  same  reckoning. 

X  Origen  (A.  D.  253),  who  was  no  chronologist,  having  been  a 
student  of  Clemens  Alex.,  either  misconstrued  his  remark,  or  applied 
it  to  the  wevi  post-vernal  XQckoxnw^,  and  called  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem "42  years"  (or  the  42nd  year)  after  the  crucifixion,  viz.,  from 
April  7,  A.  D.  30,  to  September  of  A.  D.  71,  in  the  42nd  year  by  his 
post-vernal  reckoning.  Others  in  later  times  (such  as  Clinton  and 
Schwartz)  have  misunderstood  the  "42  years"  and  "42nd  year" 
datings  of  the  fathers,  as  if  they  were  intended  to  change  the  cruci- 
fixion year  from  A.  D.  30;  and  thus  have  they  sadly  confounded  the 
Bible  Chronology,  and  the  history  of  it,  as  we  show  in  the  previous 
essay. 

II  The  "  15th  Tib."  or  A.  D.  29  was  by  Tertullian  made  to  end 
at  March  25,  A.  D.  30;  so  that  the  "2  Gemini,"  the  consuls  of  that  pre- 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  17 

riu9,"  as  being  on  the  14th  Nisan,  with  the  year  verually  reckoned  as 
starting  from  the  jst  Nisan.  And  thus  they  have  ihe  same  date  with 
different  new-year  start.  This  reconciles  all  Tertullian's  dates  of  the 
baptism  and  of  the  nativity  as  well  as  the  crucifixion,  with  those  of 
his  cotemporary  Africanus.  The  peculiar  vernal  reckoning,  as  applied 
to  the  consuls  by  Tertullian,  and  followed  by  many  subsequent  writers, 
has  led  to  great  errors  in  chronology.*  But  the  true  understanding 
of  Tertullian, f  and  especially  of  Africanus,  clears  up  all  doubt  as 
to  the  real  crucifixion  date,  A.  D.  30. 

vious  year,  were  represented  as  continuing  till  the  crucifixion.  Thus 
the  "15  Tib."  and  the  "2  Gemini"  of  A.  D.  29,  became  associated 
with  the  crucifixion,  instead  of  the  baptism  as  formerly.  And  after- 
ward, many  Latin  authors  followed  the  Latin  Tertullian  in  this 
respect;  such  as  retained  his  vernal  reckoning  meaning  of  course  (like 
him),  to  designate  the  end  of  that  chronal  year,  in  March,  A.  D.  30. 
as  the  passion-date.  The  following  writers  thus  assign  the  "two 
Gemini"  to  the  crucifixion;  Lactantius  (A.  D.  317),  Sulpicius  {400), 
Augustine  (438),  Idatius  (461),  Victorius  (457);  also,  the  Catalogus 
Pont.  Rom.  Apitd  Pasch.  Chron.,  torn,  ii: p.  jg8  (616);  and  the  Fasti 
apud  Noris.     The  full  citations  we  give  in  the  previous  essay. 

*  It  is  seeming  divergence  between  Tertullian  and  Africanus  a.s 
to  their  vernal  reckoning,  the  one  having  the  crucifixion  of  A.  D.  30  as 
the  end  of  the  "  15th  Tib,"  the  other  as  the  beginning  of  "  i6th  Tib." 
(so  creating  a  confusion  as  to  the  Gemini  consuls,  as  if  in  different 
years,  A.  D.  29-31), — it  is  this,  and  mistake  in  regard  to  this,  that  has 
given  rise  to  the  two  rival  errors  of  modem  crucifixion-dating;  that  of 
Hales,  putting  it  in  A.  D.  31,  and  that  of  Clinton,  putting  it  in  A.  D. 
29.  To  these  we  subsequently  revert,  when  we  come  to  give  "  Modem 
Views."  (This  whole  history  and  origin  of  errors  is  fully  treated  in  the 
course  of  our  investigation.) 

f  Tertullian  puts  the  baptism  as  well  as  tlie  crucifixion  in  the 
same  "  15th  Tiberius;  "  which  he  must  have  believed  to  mean  fourteen 
full  years  after  Aiegustus'  death,  or  else  he  could  not  have  allowed  so 
short  a  ministry.  So  that,  like  Africanus,  he  had  the  baptism  at  A.  D. 
29,  and  the  nativity  30  years  before  that,  at  full  2  years  B.  C.  His 
language  is:  "  Christ  was  born  in  the  41st  year  of  the  Emperor  Augus- 
tus after  the  death  of  (Julius);  and  Augustus  survived  fifteen  years 
[and  over]  afterwards.  Anno  xv,  Tiber  ii  Christ  us  Jesus  de  coelo  man- 
ere  dignatus,  spiritus  saliita>is  [etc.,  at  his  baptism].  In  the  15th  year 
of  Tiberius  he  suffered  [/.  e.,  he  suffered  through  the  15th  year],  hav- 
ing about  thirty  years  {annos  habens  quasi  xxx),  when  he  suffered  (or 
while  suffering).  *  *  -*  The  passion  was  perfected  [by  crucifixion] 
under  Tiberius  Caesar,  the  consuls  being  the  two  Gemini  [/.  e.,  put  a« 
then  ending]  in  the  month  of  March,  at  the  time  of  the  passover,  the 
VIII  Kal.  Apl."     {Tertullian,  Adv.Jud..  c.  8.) 

It  is  here  plain,  that  Tertullian  (like  Africanus)  dates  post-vernally, 
viz.,  from  March,  B.  C.  43,  after  the  death  of  Julius,  41  years  to 
March,  B.  C.  2,  as  near  the  nativity;  then  fifteen  (and  ovei)  to  the 
death  of  Augustus  (Aug.  19,  A.  D.  14);  or  4-30  from  the  beginning 
of  B.  C.  2  to  the  beginning  of  B.  C.  29,  as  the  baptism,  with  the 
crucifixion  in  A.  D.  30,  as  at  the  end  of  "15th  Tib."  reckoned  post- 


18  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

§  lo.  Concerning  Africanus,  Petavius  says:  "  On  this  perplexing 
point  my  view  is  this:  That  in  the  opinion  of  Africanus  the  incarna- 
tion was  2  years  before  the  common  era,*  at  his  5501  A,  M.  [begin- 
ning,— its  latter  part  would  be  only  i  year  B.  C.];  the  baptism  was  in 
the  15th  Tib.,  the  two  Gemini  being  consuls,  at  his  5530  A.  M.  ending 
\i.  e.  at  beginning  of  A.  D.  29,  Christ  being  30  years  of  age];  and  the 
passion  was  at  the  end  oi  5531  A.  M.,  5532  beginning  from  that  pass- 
over,  /.  e.,  in  April  oi  our  vulgar  A.  D.  jo,  [actually  April  7],  the  i6th 
of  Tiberius,  and  the  2nd  year  of  the  202nd  Olympiad,  not  yet  begun 
from  the  summer  fnonths,  but  by  proloepsis  anticipated  (from  Jan.  or 
some  other  time), — for  such  things  were  done  *  *  *  Africanus 
makes  the  baptism  to  be  in  the  consulate  of  the  2  Gemini,  when  by 
Luke  it  was  the  15th  of  Tiberius,  allowing  a  solid  year  for  the  minis- 
try [evidently  from  first  of  the  15th  to  first  of  the  i6th];  whereas,  if 
he  meant  to  put  the  passion  also  in  the  early  part  of  the  Gemini  con- 
sulate [A.  D.  29],  he  could  have  only  3  or  5  months  to  the  ministry; 
which  I  do  not  believe  was  the  opinion  of  Africanus."  (Petavius  De 
Graec.  Eris,  ch.  11,  in  Pair  Hog.  Migne,  Paris,  p.  ijQS-) 

Clinton  also  agrees  (with  writers  generally)  that  "the  passion  was 
in  the  year  A.  D.  30,  according  to  Africanus,"  quoting  from  him  as  we 
do  above.     {Clinton  Fas.  Rom.,  vol.  I,  year  jo.) 

vernally  fiom  March,  A.  D.  15.  This  is  just  like  Africanus'  dating. 
And  Clemens  Alex,  also  (another  cotemporary)  has  the  same,  as  we 
saw;  only  that  he  reduces  Christ's  "30  years,"  at  baptism  to  "30th" 
(or  about  29,  /.  e.  30  from  conception),  in  order  to  get  the  years  of  Tibe- 
rius antedated,  with  the  baptism  at  A.  D.  28,  and  so  a  longer  ministry  of 
two  years.  Thus  the  fathers  of  that  generation  agreed  in  this  thirty- 
one  year  reckoning  of  Christ's  life  from  two  years  before  Christ  to 
A.  D.  30. 

ierome  (A.  D.  400)  undertook  to  show  the  agreement  of  Tertullian 
Africanus,  by  citing  the  latter  mutilated  into  accord  with  the  for- 
mer, thus:  He  quotes  the  very  passage  of  Africanus  which  we  have 
already  cited  (note  to  §  7),  yet  makes  it  read,  "the  15th  of  Tib. 
about  the  31st  year  of  Christ,"  at  the  crucifixion,  instead  of  "the  i6th 
Tib.",  as  it  is  in  the  Greek.  {Hieroft.  Com.  Daniel.)  Syncellus  (A.  D. 
800)  quoting  from  Jerome,  perpetuates  this  alteration  of  Africanus. 
And  so  also  does  Bede  (A.  D.  700),  saying:  "  Africanus  believed  the 
passion  to  be  at  the  15th  of  Tib."  {De  Temp.,  Rat.  ix,p.  334.)  They 
seemed  to  suppose  that  Africanus  was  not  consistent  with  himself  with- 
out this  change.  But  by  the  vernal  chronology  we  find  that  he  was 
consistent,  meaning  by  "the  i6th  of  Tib."  the  very  beginning  of  it  at 
14  Nisan,  A.  D.  30,  which  Tertullian  calls  the  end  of  "the  15th  Tib." 
On  the  other  hand,  in  later  years,  Clinton  (and  so  Schwartz)  has  assid- 
uously taught,  that  Tertullian  (and  others  following  him)  were  putting 
the  crucifixio7i  earlier,  he  says  in  A.  D.  29.  But  Petavius  has  lucidly 
shown,  that  no  such  amending  of  Africanus  is  needed;  whence  we  see 
that  his  A.  D.  30  is  equally  applicable  to  Tertullian. 

*  Just  as  Bredovius  says  that  Eusebius  puts  him.  But  the 
Encyc.  Brittan.  wrongfully  says,  that  "Jul.  Africanus  put  the  nativity 
three  years  before  our  era,  so  that  A.  D.  began  in  5503  of  Africanus." 
This  error  has  led  Schwartz  and  many  others  astray. 


DEATH     OF    CHRIST  15J 

I  II.  (II).  The  Equinox  Cycle  Age.  It  was  Theophilus,  Bishop  of 
CcEsarea,  and  his  Council  there  held  iA.  D.  ig6),  under  the  sanction  of 
Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome,  that  first  promulgated  the  new  and  fanciful 
theory  of  Christ's  resurrection,  as  most  fitly  to  be  located  on  the  Equi- 
nox, supposed  to  be  then  March  25;  because  that  must  have  been  tlie 
first  day  of  Creation,  when  light  begins  to  prevail  over  darkness,  and 
because  it  wa.?,  fifttng,  that  He,  the  Author  of  light  should  then  rise  to 
the  light  of  the  new  creation,  on  that  very  day  when  He  first  created 
light  !*  Thus  was  the  age  of  historical  day-dating  passed,  the 
true  April  7th  being  now  lost:  and  the  age  of  theory  and  idle  specula- 
tion had  dawned. 

§  12.  This  equinoctial  theory  was  the  root  of  that  methodical  di- 
viding of  the  year  which  afterward  came  into  vogue,  whereby  Dec.  25, 
March  25,  June  25,  and  September  25,  were  set  apart  for  special  com- 
memorations. (See  ^  loi.)  These  quarter-days  of  the  old  Julian  year, 
we  all  know,  have  no  basis  either  of  astronomy  or  (jf  well  attached 
historical  events:  and  they  are  not  essential  to  a  "Christian  year," 
which  properly  begins  from  "the  14th  of  Nisan."  not  from  anv  sup- 
posed equinoctial  day. 

§  13.  Theophilus  thus  set  March  25  as  the  original  Resurrection 
Sunday;  but  Tertullian  a  few  years  later  made  March  25  the  original 
Crucifixion  Friday,  f  This  divergence  of  theory  at  the  very  start 
shows  how  purely  fanciful  and  theoretical  this  whole  equinoctial 
scheme  was,  without  any  basis  of  historical  fact.  These  two  methods 
of  applying  the  theory  were  widely  disseminated  and  reiterated  by  the 
writers  of  subsequent  ages,  t  the  true  crucifixion  date  being  entirely 
buried  out  of  sight.  Some  portions  of  the  Christian  world  (the 
churches  of  Gaul,  for  instance),  escaped  from  the  prevailing  quarto- 
deciman  controversy  (as  to  whether  the  14  Nisan  or  the  Sunday  follow- 
ing it  should  be  Easter),  by  taking  neither  side,  but  settling  down  upon 
the  fixed  March  25  of  the  equinoctial  theory. 

\  14.  The  new  theoretical  assignment  of  the  r/</r-(^/^7/.^  of  crucifixion 
was  not  intended  as  any  change  in  the  j/^<7r-c/<i/^  always  called  A.  1). 
30  (or  16  Tiberius).  For,  we  have  already  seen  Tertullian  virtuallv 
retaining  that  year  assignment  of  Africanus  and  Clemens  Alex., 
although  he  gives  the  day  as  March  25.  It  is  true  that  this  day  and 
this  year  will  not  agree  together,  either  in  lunar  or  week-day  reckon- 
ing: and  how  (it  may  be  asked)  could  such  a  date  be  set  forth  in  face 


*  Theophilus  in  Consil.  Caesareae,  apud  Bede,  De  Ord.  Pasch.. 
vol.  1.  p.  607.     Also  Petav.  De  Graec.  Eris.  Chap.  Ill,  p.  1406. 

fTertullian,  Adv.  Jud.  ch.  viii.  See  citation  given  before  ^y, 
note. 

X  See  list  of  writers  in  preceding  essay. 


20  NEW    TEST.     PEKIOU    G 

of  such  an  incongruity?*  The  answer  is  simple.  The  true  cycle 
reckoning  of  the  moon  and  of  the  week  (backward  over  200  years)  was 
in  that  age  but  little  understood  :f  and  when  it  was  looked  into  the 
intervening  chronology  was  so  little  fixed  that  a  year  or  two  of  the 
reigns  between  Titus  and  Diocletian  was  overlapped  or  interjected  as 
occasion  required.:}:  And  so  thej'  made  the  cycles  reach  back 
with  seeming  fitness  to  the  New  Testament  times,  without  disturbing 
the  long-fixed  year-date  of  crucifixion  as  "the  i6th  year  of  Tiberius" 
after  Augustus'  death,  the  year  78  of  the  Cassars. 

^15.  When  the  more  satisfactory  lunar  cycles  of  19  years  (as  at 
the  Council  of  Nice)  came  in,  then  there  were  made  such  applications 
of  those  cycles  in  reference  to  the  times  long  past,  as  to  be  deceptive 
concerning  old-time  dates.  Particularly  the  misleading  cycles  of  Ana- 
tolius  (A.  D.  279)  and  of  Victorius  (A.  D.  451),  seem  to  have  been  ar- 
ranged as  if  purposely  to  accommodate  the  current  equinoctial  dating 
of  crucifixion  as  at  March  23  or  25,  and  to  fit  those  day-dates  to  certain 
year-dates  finally  devised,  A.  D.  29,  28,  31,  etc.  || 

\  16.  Thus  were  new  year-dates  of  crucifixion  at  length  brought  in, 
not  by  any  historical  data,  but  by  theoretical  day-dates  applied  to 
misleading  cycles.  By  these  means,  such  writers  as  Theophilus  and 
Tertullian,  and  the  many  who  followed  their  equinoctial  theory,  were 
made  to  seem  as  if  meaning  to  date  the  passion  in  A.  D.  31,  29,  and 


*This  query  has  led  Schwartz  to  doubt  whether  these  church 
fathers  believed  the  Bible  "14  Nisan  "  to  have  had  any  reference  to 
the  stage  of  the  moon.  But  this  idea  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the 
fact  that  these  very  fathers  were  themselves  carefully  adjusting  their 
Easters  to  the  lunations  of  their  day. 

f  Schwartz  himself  has  shown  what  a  strange  medley  of  er- 
roneous cycle  reckoning  was  made  out  by  the  ogdoad  cycles  of  Hip- 
polytus  (A.  D.  236),  whereby  the  lunations  were  set  many  days  out  of 
place. 

X  Evei^y  one  knows  what  confusion  exists  in  the  Early  Christ- 
ian chronicles  as  to  the  length  of  those  reigns;  one  reign  being  short- 
ened a  year  or  two,  and  another  lengthened  a  year  or  two,  as  the  ex- 
igencies of  their  reckoning  required.  So,  that,  it  has  been  found  diffi- 
cult to  reconstruct  the  true  chronology  of  those  times.  Thus  great 
was  the  evil  of  being  without  an  established  era  such  as  we  now  have. 

I  Those  cycle  adjustments  are  fully  discussed  in  a  separate 
essay.  Clinton  and  othei^s  have  been  led  astray  by  theoretical  assign- 
ments into  the  adopting  of  A.  D.  29  for  the  crucifixion  year,  as  if  so 
taught  by  Tertullian  and  his  successors.  But  Tertullian,  like  Afri- 
canus,  meant  A.  D.  30;  just  as  asserted  in  a  note  to  Tacitus  {De/p/t. 
London^  182 j);  ^''Traditg^e,  his  coss  {Getn.  et  Gem.)  Christiim  Sahia- 
forem  passutn,  id  est,  liberii  16  (A.  D.  30).  "" 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  21 

even  28.*  Whereas,  upon  examination,  we  find  no  intentional  de- 
parture, for  some  400  years,  from  the  original  assignment  of  the  cruci- 
fixion, as  "Tiberius  i6th,"  or  A.  D.  30. 

§  17.  (III.)  The  Later-  Theory  Age.  We  have  seen  (§  8),  that  Afri- 
canus  had  the  hfe  of  Christ  but  31  years,  from  two  whole  years  B.  C. 
to  A.  D.  30,  the  ministry  being  put  as  only  one  year,  A.  D.  29-30.  We 
have  further  seen  (§  16)  that  the  Alexandrine  cycle,  dating  from  the 
time  of  Epiphanius  (A.  D.  400)  got  the  thirty-one  years  as  reaching 
from  one  whole  year  B.  C.  to  A.  D.  31,  for  the  crucifixion. f  We  here 
only  add,  that  afterwards,  the  life  of  Christ  was  lengthened  from  the 
31  to  its  proper  33  years:  which  carried  the  crucifixion  to  A.  D.  33. 
Dionysius  Exiguus  (A.  D.  525)  had  the  incarnation  thus  at  B.  C.  i,  and 
proposed  this  date  for  the  Christian  Era.  But  the  Venerable  Bede 
(A.  D.  700)  misunderstood  him  as  meaning  that  the  nativity  was  at  the 

*  Augustine,  C.  D.  18,  §4.  Sulpicius,  S.  H.  240.  Descript.  Con., 
p.  8gi,  Vol.  LI.  Migne  Patrilog.  Catalog.  Pont.  Rom.  apud  Pasch. 
Chron.,  torn.  LL,  p.  ig8,  Narrat.  18  Tib.  Refer  also  to  Gaudentius, 
Apollinarius,  Chrysostom,  etc.  Victorius  (A.  D.  451.  Can.  Pasch.,  p. 
<?,  p,  /j),  got  the  passion  at  A.  D.  28.  But  before  him,  the  Alexan- 
drines (who  had  most  to  do  with  the  cycles)  had  judged  the  equinoc- 
tial theory  of  passion  to  require  A.  D.  31.  For,  that  year  alone  gave 
the  passover  on  Friday,  according  to  the  19-year  cycle,  with  the 
resurrection  coming  on  Sunday.  March  25.  as  they  understood  the 
equinoctial  theory  to  demand. 

This  A.  D.  31  then  became  the  Alexandrine  or  current  dating,  from 
Epiphanius  at  the  end  of  the  4th  century  (See  Clinton.  Fas.  Rom.,  p. 
ji),  down  to  the  Paschal  Chronicle  at  the  beginning  of  the  7th  cen- 
tury'. {Corp.  Hist.  Byzant..  f??/. /d/  down  to  A.  D.  616.)  Hales  has 
wrongly  followed  this  A.  D.  31  as  if  the  true  historical  dating;  just  as 
Clinton  has  wrongly  followed  the  A.  D.  29.  The  truth  is  between 
them,  at  A.  D.  30.  This  A.  D.  31  dating  increased  the  life  of  Christ 
again  to  its  full  and  proper  ^i  years  (as  reckoned  bj-  Eusebius)  from  3 
years  before  our  A.  D.  to  A.  D.  31.  (Cassiodorus  Chron.  Migne,  Vol. 
6g.  p.  12 14.)  But  as  reckoned  by  many  from  2  years  before  A.  D.,  it 
made  only  ^z  years.     (Anianus  in  Syncel.,   Vol.  j,  p.  82.) 

And  indeed,  those  who  followed  the  31-year  reckoning  of  Africanus, 
now  reduced  the  nativity  to  only  i  year  before  our  A.  D.  This  was 
the  method  of  Panadorus  (A.  D.  400  in  Syncel.  Hist.  Byzant.,  Vol. 
XLL,  p.  614),  and  of  Dionysius  Exiguus.  (A.  t).  523,  Epis.  in  Petal'.  De 
Doct.  Temp.  App.)  And  from  the  latter  our  Vulgar  Era  was  after- 
ward erroneously  deduced,  as  i  year  later  still.  But  every  date  of  the 
crucifixion  except  A.  D.  30  was  purely  theoretical,  derived  from  later 
cycles  as  applied  to  the  equinoctial  theory,  without  any  basis  of  his- 
torical fact. 

t  With  this  review  of  the  earlj'  history  of  the  crucifixion  date,  here 
brought  down  to  A.  D.  400,  we  may  suspend  for  the  present  our  his- 
tory of  opinion  (which  we  have  carried  down  to  the  present  day)  in 
order  to  give  next  our  Astronomical  Demonstration  of  the  crucifixion 
date  as  unmistakably  A.  D.  30,  Friday  April  7th  Julian. 


22  NEW     lEST.     PERIOD    G 

endoi  i  B.  C.  (or  beginning  of  i  A.  D.),  and  so  established  the  Christian 
Era  as  it  now  is,  four  years  too  late;  which  made  the  life  of  Christ, 
33X  years  (as  he  rightly  reckoned  it),  extend  to  A.  D.  34. 

(IV.)  The  Astronomical  Age.  At  length,  science  showed  that  the 
long-followed  passion  date  of  Bede,  A.  D.  34,  was  astronomically  im- 
practicable; and  Roger  Bacon  (A.  D.  1250)  fell  back  upon  A.  D.  33, 
April  3,  Friday,  as  the  crucifixion  date,  because  more  in  harmony  with 
the  lunar  reckoning  for  the  passover.  And  this  reckoning,  A.  D.  33, 
has  ever  since,  down  to  the  present  century,  been  the  currently  re- 
ceived date  for  the  death  of  Christ. 

CHAPTER  II. 
Astronomical  Demonstration. 

I.     The  State  of  the  Case. 

>  §  18.  When  the  date  A.  D.  1,^  for  the  crucifixion,  as  assigned  by 
Roger  Bacon  and  Archbishop  Usher,  was  abandoned  at  the  beginning 
of  the  present  century,  instead  of  a  return  to  the  original  and  correct 
date,  A.  D.  30,  there  was  a  two-fold  wandering  to  A.  D.  31  and  A.  D. 
zg.  Hales  in  his  great  work  (A.  D.  1812)  set  forth  A.  D.  31,  and  Clin- 
ton (A.  D.  1845)  elaborated  A.  D.  29,  as  the  crucifixion  date.  The  dif- 
ficulties of  each  of  these  systems  arise  largely  from  the  neglect  of  both 
to  make  a  stiict  astronomical  verification  of  the  result;  which,  if  intro- 
duced would  at  once  disprove  both  theories,  and  reveal  the  true  date 
as  A.  D.  30. 

Thus  Clinton  finds  that  according  to  Cunninghame  it  was  full  moon  on 
Friday,  March  18,  A.  D.  29,  at  9  p.  m.,  and  that  he  and  Browne  regard 
that  as  the  paschal  day,  Jinc  days  before  the  actual,  and  nine  before 
the  standard  equinox  of  those  times  !  contrary  to  all  acknowledged 
modes  of  puschal  reckoning.  But  Clinton  also  finds  that,  by  adding 
\A,%  and  29>^  days,  he  gets  a  new  moon  April  2  at  3  p.  m.,  (five  hours 
earlier  than  Benson),  with  a  full  moon  on  April  17  at  9  a.  m.,  that  is, 
on  Sunday.  So  he  concludes  to  assign  the  passion  to  the  previous 
Friday,  two  days  before  the  full  moon  !  making  the  lunar  month  com- 
mence over  a  day  before  the  change  of  the  moon  ! 

\  19.  A  similar  difficulty  in  the  case  of  Hales  is  thus  described  by 
him:  "If  the  year  of  crucifixion  was  A.  D.  31,  as  is  most  likely,  it  fol- 
lows from  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  in  Pingre's  tables,  April  25  at  9  p.  m. 
[of  that  year],  that  the  paschal  full  inoon  [a  month  earlier  taken  as  the 
crucifixion  date]  fell  on  the  27th  of  March;  which,  in  the  calculation  of 
Newton,  T'erguson,  Lang,  and  the  compilation  of  Bacon,  is  reckoned 
TiESDAV."     But   Christ  died  on    Friday.     This   formidable  difficulty 


DEATH   OF    CHRIST  23 

Hales  surmounts  by  adding:  "  But  there  is  sometimes  an  error  oj  a 
day  or  two  in  these  computations  of  the  days  of  the  week;  so  that,  it 
[the  full  moon]  might  have  happened  on  Thursday.  On  the  other 
hand,  Scaliger,  Dodwell,  and  Manne  reckon  the  paschal  full  moon  a  day 
earlier,  the  26th  of  March,  and  Petaviusthe  23d  day  of  March.  *  This 
slunvs  the  uncertainty  of  the  precise  day  of  full  moon  (  ! )  and  how  little 
stress  can  be  laid  on  such  calculations,  as  Petavius  says." 

Indeed!  we  may  well  exclaim,  what  "uncertainty"  can  there  be 
about  the  age  of  the  moon  at  the  time  of  an  eclipse,  accurately  cal- 
culated and  recorded  in  the  astronomical  tables  ?  And  what  uncer- 
tainty can  there  be  about  the  length  of  time  back  to  the  full  moon  be- 
fore ?  And  what  can  all  these  guesses  of  theorists,  made  to  carry 
their  point,  weigh  against  the  scientifically  established  place  of  a 
heavenly  body?  Such  random  assertions  of  "uncertainty"  do  but 
serve  to  cover  the  weakness  of  a  favorite  but  untenable  hypothesis. 

g  20.  It  is  not  strange,  perhaps,  that  with  such  vague  theories,  we 
find  Clinton  speaking  thus:  "It  can  not  be  determined  from  their 
[Jewish]  computation,  in  what  year  the  paschal  sacrifice  fell  on  the 
6th  day  of  the  week.  So  also  says  Giesler,  Vol.  I,  P.  38.  Benson 
justly  condemns  those  who  take  for  granted  that  the  time  may  be 
known     *     *    *     We  can  not  fix  it  by  astronomy."  f 

Of  course  not,  by  such  astronomy  as  here  displayed.  In  like  man- 
ner, Hales  gives  his  theory  as  only  a  thing  "most  likely,"  an  hypothe- 
sis dependent  upon  some  imaginable  error  of  all  the  scientific  men, 
concerning  the  days  of  the  week  and  of  the  moon! 

How  idle  thus  to  speculate  on  sucli  a  matter,  when  these  data  may 
be  so  readily  and  so  exactly  verified.  For,  it  surely  can  be  no  more 
difficult,  to  ascertain  beyond  a  possibility  of  error,  the  particular  day 
of  the  week  on  which  any  new  moon  or  full  moon  fell,  at  any  point  of 
past  history, — than  it  has  been  to  calculate  to  a  minute  the  eclipses 
occurring  at  them,  and  indeed  to  fix,  as  is  done,  every  eclipse  ever  re- 
corded, at  any  full  moon  and  new  moon  since  the  beginning  of  history! 

g  21.  Hear  the  distinguished  Herschel  on  this  point:  "Now  that 
the  lunar  theory  is  fully  understood,  remarkable  eclipses  [and  of  course 
the  new  and  full  moon]  can  be  calculated  back  for  several  thousands 
of  years,  without  the  possibility  of  mistaking  the  days  of  their  occur- 
rence. And  whenever  any  such  eclipse  [or  lunar  phenomenon]  is  so 
interwoven  with  the  account  given  by  an  ancient  author,  of  some  his- 
torical event,  as  to  indicate  precisely  the  interval  of  time  between  the 


*  Hurrying  up  the  moon,  to  accommodate  the  preceding  Friday! 
What  a  farce  does  this  make  of  science  ! 

f  Fas.  Rom.,  Vol.  II,   P.  241.     Farrar   also,   in   his   Life   of  Christ, 
says,    "  The  date  of  our  Lord's  crucifixion  cannot  be  depended  on." 


24  NKW    TEST.     PERIOD    G 

eclipse  and  the  event,  and  at  the  same  time  completely  to  identify  the 
eclipse,  that  date  is  recovered  and  fixed  forever.'''  (Outlines  of  Astroa. 
by  Sir  F.  W.  Herschel,  Bart,  K.  H.,  London,  1851.  8  Vo.,  P  I,  Ch. 
vi,  §933-) 

§  22.  It  is  by  astronomical  determination,  therefore,  that  the  orig- 
inal and  historical  date  of  the  crucifixion  is  at  length  to  be  restored.  * 
And  this  determination  is  a  practicable  one,  imposing  no  uncertain- 
ties. If,  in  the  calculations  of  Newton,  Bacon,  and  others,  there  may 
have  been  found,  as  Hales  asserts,  some  misprints  or  mispennings  of 
one  or  two  days,  the  whole  Gospel  need  not  and  should  not  be  left 
hanging  on  such  trivial  possibilities,  but  should  be  verified  by  new 
and  unmistakable  reckoning.  It  is  a  wonder  that  Hales,  and  Clinton, 
with  all  their  research  and  thoroughness  in  other  respects,  should 
have  left  this  matter  thus  loose.  It  may  be  a  want  of  astronomical 
taste  or  mathematical  skill,  that  allows  men  to  propagate  (with  excus- 
able zeal)  such  dates  as  t/te figures  will  not  sanction. 

And  is  it  not  time,  that,  amid  all  the  advance  of  modern  science, 
throwing  its  light  upon  Bible  scenes  and  events,  conflicting  theories 
should  be  set  at  rest,  by  a  simple  demonstration  of  the  crucifixion  date 
in  astronomical  as  well  as  historical  facts?  As  no  one  else  undertakes 
this,  we  venture  upon  the  attempt.  The  wish  is,  to  give  all  the  prin- 
cipal steps  of  the  abstruse  calculation,  yet  so  simplified  as  to  be  within 
the  grasp  of  any  average  scholar,  to  judge  for  himself  W\^  accuracy  of 
the  result. 

II.  The  Means  of  Adjustment. 

\  23.  There  is  in  the  Gospel  History  the  fortunate  and  providen- 
tial concurrence  of  two  chronological  determinations,  namely,  the 
age  of  the  moon  and  the  day  of  the  week  when  our  Lord  suffered;  and 
these  data,  truly  and  astronomically  calculated,  should  determine  the 
day  of  the  passion.  That  the  day  of  the  week  was  Friday  few  have 
undertaken  to  call  in  question;  and  there  is  so  little  to  sustain  any' 
different  view,  that  we  need  not  dwell  upon  the  matter  here.f  In 
regard  to  the  age  of  the  moon  at  the  crucifixion  passover,  we  lay  down 
the  following  as  the  true  and  incontrovertible  statement:  The  time 
for  slaying  the  fewish  passover  was  within  a  few  hours  after  the  full  of 
the  moon  which  next  followed  the  vernal  equinox.  Here  are  three 
points  to  be  noticed : 


*  "These  astronomical  observations,  being  mathematically  su?-eand 
reliable,  instituted  upon  the  occurrence  of  important  events,  *  *  * 
because  none  of  these  planetary  configurations  can  occur  twice  in  his- 
tory, *'  *  *  do  determine  the  dates  of  the  events  connected  with 
them  with  mathematical  certaiiity.^"  (Seyffarth,  Recent  Discov.,  p. 
22,) 

f  We  have  fully  discussed  the  week-date  of  crucifixion  and  of  resur- 
rection, in  Appendix  A,  \  51. 


DEATH   OF    CHRIS 


i>  24.  (i)  The  psissover  aUvaysioWowed  the  Tentci/ equinox.*  This 
the  Jewish  appointments  concerning  first-fruits  and  Pentecost  required; 
this  the  "Jewish  Calendar,"  continued  to  this  daj-,  demonstrates; 
this  the  writers  of  all  ages  have  confirmed  and  settled,  f  The  Jews 
must  have  had  a  rule  upon  this  point;  and  no  other  can  be  assigned 
but  this,  which  they  now  employ;  while  the  referring  of  the  date  by 
Josephus  to  "  the  sign  of  Aries  "  shows  that  this  was  indeed  their  rule.  X 

(2)  The  passover  was  at  \he  full  moon.  That  is,  in  being  fixed  to 
the  close  of  the  14th  day  of  the  ist  Jewish  month,  it  was  a  lutiar  tnonth 
referred  to,  and  such  were  always,  as  now,  the  months  of  the  Jews. 
The  Mosaic  appointments  and  history  show  this  fact,  and  it  has  been 
conceded  by  about  all  writers.  I 

'i  25.  (3)  The  passover  in  the  New  Testament  times  was  immedi- 
ately afte7'  rather  than  before  the  full  moon.  For,  the  new  month  and 
new  year  was  not  reckoned  till   the  moon   was  about  two  days  old. 


*  That  is,  the  Jewish  New-year  began  with  the  new  moon  nearest 
to  the  equinox.  Dodwell,  Petavius,  and  all  others  reckon  thus,  mak- 
ing the  passover  never  later  than  our  April  18,  or  earlier  than  our 
March  21.  "When  the  passover  would  fall  before  the  equinox,  they 
put  in  a  month."  {Encyc.  Brit.  Art.  Chronol.)  It  came  "  about  that 
full  moon  which  fell  upon  or  next  after  the  day  of  the  vernal  equi- 
nox." {Halts'  A7ial..  P.  6j.)  So  the  Jfwis/i  Calendar,  Dc  Sola,  Mon- 
treal j6i4=iSj4.  "  The  paschal  term  or  14th  of  the  Easter  moon  can 
fall  only  on  29  different  days,  from  March  21  to  April  18  inclusive." 
{Nicholas'  Chronol.  of  Hist.) 

t  Clinton  alone,  at  this  late  day  has  attempted  to  throw  doubt  upon 
this  point;  but  he  does  not  succeed.  [Clin.  Fas.  Rom.,  Jol.  //,  P.  240, 
242.)  He  says,  "'Benson  properly  remarks,  that  in  the  Mosaic  law 
there  is  no  injunction  which  refers  to  the  equinox  at  all."  But  that 
law  did  require  a  certain  state  of  the  grain,  which  necessitated  the 
adoption  of  this  rule.  (Lev.  xxiii:  5-16.)  "In  order  to  secure  the 
proper  reduction  of  the  lunar  to  the  solar  year,  Moses  obliged  the 
priests  to  present  the  first-fruits  on  the  i6th  day  of  the  ist  month. 
So  they  had  to  put  in  an  intercalary,  usually  in  the  3d  year."  {Jahn's 
Arch.)  For  this  purpose,  "the  19-year  cycle  was  divinely  revealed 
through  Moses,"  says  De  A7-g.  Lun.',  P.  12^  in  Bedc.  In  like  manner, 
"the  Greek  Olympiads  were  begun  at  the  full  moon  of  that  month 
wtiose  new  moon  fell  nearest  to  the  summer  solstice."  (Ahite  to  Hier- 
on.,  P.  jji.)  "The  Mosaic  ordinance  decrees,  that  the  passover  is 
not  to  be  observed  before  the  day  of  the  equinox.  So  Anatolius  (A.D. 
279)  attests;  so  Philo  evidently  teaches,  and  Josephus,  and  before 
them  Agathabulus.  and  also  Aristobulus,  one  of  the  Lxx.  So  saj'S 
Eusebius,  and  we  say  the  same."  {Bede,  Cap.  xxx,  P.  426.)  So,  "the 
council  of  Nice  established  the  Easter  full  moon  to  follow  the  vernal 
equinox,  from  xii  Kal.  April,  to  xiv  Kal.  May."  (Epistle  Dionys.  Exig., 
A.  D.J2^.)     In  this  all  the  fathers  were  agreed. 

X  He  says  that  was  the  time  which  "the  law  ordained."  (Jos. 
Antiq.,  3,   x,  5.)     So  Philo. 

II  This  matter  of  Lunar  Months  we  discuss  in  Apjieiidix  B..  ^67. 


2(5 


'KKIOD    G 


From  the  early  times  the  Jews  began  the  mouth  with  the  signal  of 
trumpets,  (Psa.  Ixxxi:  3),  not  sounded  by  the  priests  till  the  new  moon 
was  seen.  Nor  was  the  new  moon  inaugurated  without  the  further 
delay  of  signaling  by  watch-fires  over  all  the  land.  *  By  these 
means,  the  14th  or  paschal  day  of  the  month  was  prevented  from 
coming  till  the  full  moon  had  arrived;  the  average  time  of  which  full 
moon  being  near  15  days  after  the  moon's  conjunction  with  the  sun, 
included  nearly  2  days  before  the  month,  with  13  days  of  the  month, 
until  the  beginning  of  "  14  Nisan,"  the  average  date  of  the  full  moon. 
§  26.  When,  from  clouds  or  other  reason,  the  moon  did  not  appear 
till  30  days  from  its  last  appearance,  they  knew  that  its  time  had  fully 
come,  and  began  the  new  month  accordingly,  f  Philo  tells  us  (as  in 
Hales),  that  in  that  clear  climate,  they  sometimes  saw  the  moon  when 
only  about  a  day  old.  But  the  witnesses  had  then  to  be  examined, 
the  decree  of  the  Sanhedrim  issued,  %  the  signal  fires  lighted,  and  the 
tidings  fully  spread;  so  that  the  month  could  hardly  commence  under 
two  days  after  the  moon,  ff  This  view  is  confirmed  by  Robinson, 
Home,  Jahn,  and  Jewish  and  Christian  writers  generally.! 


*  "Formerly,  fires  were  lighted  on  the  tops  of  the  mountains,  to 
announce  the  appearance  of  the  new  moon.  They  lighted  the  flaming 
brands,  and  kept  them  moving  to  and  fro,  until  they  could  perceive 
the  same  repeated  by  another  person  on  the  next' mountain,"  etc. 
"  But  when  the  Samaritans  led  the  nation  into  error,  by  lighting  these 
mountain  beacons  at  wrong  times,  to  mock  and  mislead  the  Jews,  it 
was  ordained  that  messengers  should  be  sent  out.'"  "At  Nisan  and 
Tisri  they  went  as  far  as  Syria."  {Alis/ifui,  Ros/i  Ihis/uiiui/i.  ch.  II, 
%  2,  J.      Tnms.  of  DeSola  &^  Raphael,  p.  /j/.)     f  Id. 

:|:  "  Formerly,  evidence  as  to  the  appearance  of  the  new  moon  was 
received  from  any  one;  but  afterward,  all  the  witnesses  met  and  were 
examined  in  a  large  court  at  Jei'usalem,  called  Beth  Yanzek,  as  to  the 
form  of  the  moon,  the  direction  of  the  horns,  her  elevation,  etc.  The 
chief  of  the  tribunal  then  gave  decree."     (Mis/ma,  t^  /,   6,  7.) 

ff  "When  the  moon  is  in  perigee  and  her  motion  quickest,  she 
does  not  usually  appear  until  the  2d  day;  nor  in  apogee  when  slowest, 
until  the  4th."  (Old  Creek  Astroii.  Geminits,  B.  C.  bo.  See  Hales, 
p.  67.)  ".  After  the  moon's  conjunction,  it  is  generally  2  days  or  more 
before  any  part  of  her  enlightened  surface  is  visible."  ^Dick's  Solar 
Sys.,//.s,p.  J/.) 

II  "  They  did  not  begin  it  [the  month]  iroin  tiiat  ])oint  of  time  when 
the  moon  was  in  conjunction  with  the  sun,  but  from  the  time  at  which 
she  first  became  visible  after  that  conjunction;  and  the  beginning  of 
the  month  was  proclaimed  by  sound  of  trumpet."  {Robinsoti's  Calmet, 
at  Month.) 

"The  Jewish  months  being  lunar,  were  originally  calculated  from 
the  first  appearance  of  the  moon,  on  which  the  feast  of  the  new  moon, 
or  beginnmg  of  the  month  was  celebrated.  It  was  proclaimed  by  the 
sound  of  trumpets."     (Home's  Jntrod.  Antiq.,  P.  HI.  Ch.  iv:  \  2.) 

"  The  days  of  the  new  moon  were  not  obtained  by  astronomical  cal- 


DEATH   OF    CHRIST 


§  27.  The  process  we  have  been  describing  answered  for  the 
Hebrews  in  determining  their  months,  only  while  they  continued  in 
their  own  land.  So  that,  when  scattered  abroad,  as  they  were  at  an 
early  day,  they  had  to  resort  to  some  more  scientific  method,  and  no 
doubt  some  such  improvement  was  introduced  into  their  own  land. 
For  this  purpose,  they  made  use  of  a  lunar  cyclk.  probably  the 
same  ig-year  cycle  which  the  Gieeks  employed  for  a  like  end,  and 
which  is  still  used  (in  adapted  forms)  by  the  Jews  as  the  "Jewish 
Lunar  Cycle "  in  our  almanacs,  and  by  Christians  as  the  "Golden 
Number."  These  cycles  show  with  great  accuracy  the  date  of  return- 
ing new  moons  in  successive  years  for  generations  and  even  centuries 
continuously;  but  every  such  ig-year  cycle  has  a  slight  fractional 
excess,  by  which  in  a  very  long  lapse  of  time  it  little  by  little  overlaps 
the  moon's  lunations,  carrying  the  ni'ii'  ))ioon  date  gradually  later  and 
later  after  the  new  moon  itself,  to  the  total  amount  of  i  whole  day  in  310 
years.  * 

§  28.  Take,  for  example,  the  old  Greek  cycle  of  19  years  estab- 
lished by  Meton,  B.  C.  433,  and  readjusted  by  Calippus  in  B.  C.  330; 
which  was  probably  used,  more  or  less,  by  the  Jews  in  the  subsequent 

culation,  as  the  Rabbin's  assert,  but  when  the  moon  was  seen,  as 
maintained  by  the  Caraites.  It  is  evident,  that  neither  Josephus  nor 
Philo  knew  the  difference  of  the  astronomical  and  the  apparent  new- 
moon.  ' '     ( Jahn '.V  ArchcPfllogy. ) 

"  The  beginning  of  the  month  was  determined  only  by  sight.  When 
a  new  moon  became  visible,  a  new  month  began.  When  the  15th  of 
Nisan  would  have  occurred  before  the  vernal  equinox,  an  intercalary 
month  was  inserted."'     {Encyc.  Brittan.  Art.  CJwonoIogy.) 

"The  moment  of  conjunction  can  only  be  known  through  an 
amount  of  astronomical  knowledge  and  calculation,  which  there  is  no 
evidence  to  show  that  the  Isi^aelites  possessed  so  soon  after  their 
departure  from  Egypt.  The  commencement  of  the  new  moon  festival 
can  only  be  understood,  therefore,  of  the  first  phases  or  appearance 
of  the  moon,  which  God  ordered  as  a  season  that  they  were  fully  able 
to  determine  themselves  by  their  own  observation."'  "The  reader 
will  please  remember,  that  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  months  was 
not  reckoned  from  the  moon's  conjunction  with  the  sun,  but  from  the 
time  the  former  emerges  from  the  latter,  and  is  first  visible  in  the 
west  after  sunset."     (Jewish  Calendar,  Montreal,  p.  12.) 

The  contrary  view  of  Hales  cannot  be  sustained,  as  the  Jewish 
Calendar  ably  shows.  "  Theophilus  planned,  that  on  the  14th  of  the 
moon  it  be  seen  to  rise  in  the  heavens  with  full  orb  at  that  moment 
when  the  sun  sets."     {Cyril,  Prologue  in  Petai'.  Doe.    Temp.) 

*  The  ig  years  taken  as  Julian,  with  365  days  each  and  an  extrii 
day  allowed  every  4  years  (or  ig  in  every  76  years,  as  arranged  by 
Calippus),  contain  6g39d.75  each  on  an  average.  But  the  235  lunations 
therein,  each  being  29d. 5305885,  come  to  6g3gd.6882g,  which  is  less  by 
.0617  of  a  day.  This  fraction  multiplied  by  16X  cycles  (amounting  to 
310  years)  will  give  a  whole  day  of  excess  to  the  cycle  in  that  length  of 
time.  That  is,  the  cycle's  Julian  years  exceed  bv  that  much  its  total 
lunations  during  that  time. 


28  NEW    TEST.     PERIOD    G 

centuries,  even  as  used  by  them  now.*  As  adjusted  by  Calippus,  this 
cycle  had  its  year  i  at  B.  C,  330,  and  at  every  repetition  of  19  years 
from  that  time  downward;  viz,  at  311,  292,  etc. — at  B.  C.  45,  26,  7,  and 
A.  D,  13,  32,  etc.  Every  year  i  of  that  cycle  had  Epact  o,  year  2  had 
Epact  II,  year  3  had  Epact  22,  year  4  had  Epact  (33 — 30^  3,  and  so 
on  through;  each  Epact  increasing  by  11  days,  with  a  whole  lunation 
of  30  days  dropped  whenever  reached,  f 

^  29.  The  several  Epacts  showed  the  age  of  the  ne%v  moon  com- 
mencing the  successive  years,  at  the  return  of  a  fixed  annual  date,  the 
standard  point  of  the  solar  year.  Thus,  year  i  of  Calippus'  cycle 
(viz,  B.  C.  330,  A.  D.  32,  or  the  like),  had  Epact  o;  that  is,  the  new 
moon  had  no  age,  occurring  upon  the  standard  day  itself,  namely,  the 
•day  of  the  Sutnmer  Solstice.  The  year  2  (namely,  B.  C.  329,  A.  D. 
33,  or  the  like),  had  Epact  11,  that  is,  the  new  moon,  was  11  days  old 
on  the  standard  day  of  the  Summer  Solstice;  so  that  the  15th  day  of 
the  first  lunar  month,  or  full  moon  day,  when  the  Olymphic  Games 
were  to  be  celebrated  (viz,  always  at  the  first  full  moon  after  the  Sum- 
mer Solstice,  as  the  first  month  of  their  year),  would  that  year  be  (15 
— 11=)  4  days  after  the  Solstice.  And  so  of  every  new  year  and  its  full 
moon  festival;  all  were  exactly  regulated  as  to  their  date  by  the  re- 
volving cycle. 

§  30.  Now  the  Standard  Day  of  Calippus  and  the  Greeks  was  June 
28  Julian  (or  its  equivalent)  as  the  supposed  Solstice  day  of  those 
times,:}:  and  to  that  day  the  Epacts  were  applied.     But  they  would  ap- 


*  ••  Employed  by  the  Jews  even  from  the  time  of  Alexander,"  says 
Dr.  Hales.  {Tech.  Chron.,  Vol.  /,  p.  66.)  He  even  says;  "It  has 
been  suspected,  and  not  without  foundation,  that  this  celebrated  cycle 
was  borrowed  by  Meton  from  the  ancient  Jewish  tables.  This  was  the 
opinion  of  the  learned  Anatolius,  Bishop  of  Laodicaea,  about  A.  D. 
270."  So  also  teaches  the  Jewish  Calendar;  "The  19-year  cycle  was 
divinely  revealed  through  Moses."     {De  Arg.  Ltin.,  p.  72J  in  Bede.) 

f  The  Epacts  of  the  cycle  are  as  follows: 
Cycle  Yr.  i,     2,    3,  4,     5,    6,  7,    8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14,  15,  16,  17,  i8,  19. 
Epact,       o,  II,  22,  3,  14,  25,  6,  17,  28,  g,  20,   i,   12,  23,  4,  15,  26,  7,   18. 

X  Meton  had  it  more  correctly  on  June  27,  (says  Prideaux,  Vol.  II, 
p.  409),  /.  e.  on  "  Phamenoth  21  "  in  B.  C.  432;  and  the  Solstice  was  in- 
deed that  year  on  that  verj'  day,  June  27,  at  wVz  a.  m.  in  Greece,  as 
we  find  by  our  exact  calculation.  But,  because  the  exact  length  of  the 
solar  year  was  then  unknown,  and  until  Calippus,  leap-days  were  not 
always  inserted  regularly  to  adapt  the  rotary  Egyptian  year  to  the 
Solstice,  therefore  Calippus  wandered  to  June  28  in  beginning  his  cycle, 
the  very  day  of  new  moon  in  B.  C.  330,  at  ^'4  P-  M-  iii  Greece,  by  our 
mean  reckoning. 

"The  Calippic  cycle  began  June  28,  B.  C.  330.  M.  Biot  has  shown 
that  the  Solstice  and  new  moon  not  only  coincided  on  the  day  here  set 
down  as  the  commencement  of  the  Calippic  cycle,  but  that  by  a  happy 
coincidence  a  bare  possibility  existed  of  seeing  the  crescent  moon  at 
Athens  within  that  day,  reckoned  from  midnight  to  midnight."  {J7ers- 
chel,  Outlines  of  Astron.,  London,  rS^=;r.\  More  correctly,  the  Solstice 
was  then  June  26th,  ^ytli. 


DEATH   OF    CHRIST  2^ 

ply  equally  well  to  March  31,  just  3  lunations  before;  so  that  the  Jews 
could  easily  use  those  Greek  Epacts  for  the  adjustment  of  their  years. 
For  instance,  the  year  A.  D.  30  was  cycle  year  18,  having  epact  7;  that 
is,  by  the  cycle  the  new  year  month  was  7  days  old  on  June  28  or  on 
March  31  (ending  at  sunset);  *  so  that  the  15th  of  the  ist  month  Nisan 
or  Abib  by  the  cycle  began  on  April  7  at  sunset,  before  which  the  pas- 
ctial  lambs  must  be  slain.  And  the  ist  month  began  the  new  year  at 
sunset  of  March  24;  which  was  near  2  days  after  the  actual  new  moon 
in  the  night  of  March  22-23. 

§  31.  This  tai'diness  of  the  cycle  in  beginning  the  month  and  year 
arose  (as  we  have  seen)  from  its  accumulation  of  excess  in  the  lapse  of 
about  400  years,  amounting  to  i  day  and  several  hours,  added  to  part  of 
a  day's  overlap  at  the  very  beginning.  Thus  every  cycle  year  in  the 
New  Testament  times  would  be  near  two  days  later  than  the  moon.f 
So  that,  whether  reckoning  by  an  old  cycle  like  that  of  the  Greeks,  | 
or  by  their  still  more  ancient  method  of  observation  concerning  the 
rhoon's  reappearance,  the  Jews  would  naturally  have  their  months  and 
years,  beginning  about  two  days  affer  the  moon's  conjunction  with  the 
sun,  and  their  slaughter  of  the  lambs  (near  the  close  of  the  14th 
Nisan)  coming  just  after  rather  than  before  the  full  moon. 

\  32.  In  view^  of  the  foregoing  well-established  principles,  see  now 
the  certainty  of  error  in  the  dates  of  crucifixion  assigned  by  Hales  and 
by  Clinton.     Astronomical  calculation,  according  to  their  own  state- 


*  The  Jewish  days  thus  began,  as  we  learn  from  Gen.  i:  5.  etc., 
Lev.  xxiii:  32.     So  all  authors  agree. 

f  Herschel  remarks  {Astnvi.,  %  926),  that  the  cycle  of  Meton  itself 
was  begun  at  "the  earliest  possible  visibility  "  of  the  moon,  and  was, 
therefore,  i  day  too  late  for  astronomical  accuracy.  So,  also,  Clin- 
ton (F.  R.,  ii,  p.  242,  and  F.  H.,  ii,  p.  338).  So,  in  A.  D.  1856,  the  new 
moon  came  April  4,  while  the  Jewish  ist  month  Nisan  did  not  begin  till 
April  6.  See  Amer.  Almanac.  "The  new  moon  occurs  i,  2  or  3 
days  before  the  day  marked  by  the  epact,  rarely  falling  on  the  day 
indicated."  {Lardner's  Nick.  Chron.)  Compare  1 1  Ki.  xxv:  27,  with 
Jer.  Hi:  31.  So  the  modern  Jews  have  an  18-hour  rule,"  and  a 
duplicate  new  moon  day,  to  adjust  visibility  with  conjunction. 
{Jewish  Calendar  p.  24,  /j.)  "According  to  Newton,  the  phasis 
occurs  when  the  moon  is  i8h.  old;  but  the  month  is  sometimes  delayed 
till  the  moon  is  id.  i7h.  old."  (Clinton,  F.  R.,  ii:/.  240.)  "  If  the  con- 
junction is  after  sunset,  it  is  not  the  ist  but  the  30th  day  of  the 
month.  In  the  19th  year,  the  moon  might  be  even  2  days  before  the 
cycle."     (Bede.) 

j^  When  the  Jews  applied  the  epacts  to  the  equinox  (as  the  Greeks  ap- 
plied them  to  the  Solstice),  they  had  to  reduce  them  each  by  3,  for  the 
3  days  from  Maixh  31  down  to  the  old  equinox,  March  28,  or  by  6,  for 
the  6  days  down  to  Julius  Cassar's  equinox,  March  25.  How  they 
changed  their  Lunar  Cycle  along  9  years  to  its  present  order,  is  shown 
in  Appendix  C,  ^  73. 


aU  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

ineiits,  has  determined  that  the  paschal  full  moon  of  A.  D.  31,  was  on  the 
27th  of  March,  being  Tuesday,  the  3d  day  of  the  week,  and  that  of  A. 
D.  29,  was  April  17th,  being  Sunday,  the  ist  day  of  the  week.*  But 
the  Gospel  history  tells  us  that  Christ  was  crucified  at  the  passover, 
and  therefore,  at  the  full  moo7i  on  Friday,  the  6th  day  of  the  week. 
Of  course,  it  could  not  have  been  in  either  of  those  years,  A.  D.  29  or 
31,  unless,  indeed,  these  astronomical  calculations  are  false,  and 
unless  the  full  moon  and  the  Friday  can  somehow  be  brought  together. 
This  divinely  recorded  and  purely  natural  concurrence  of  the  moon's 
aspect  with  the  day  of  the  week,  a  matter  fixed  and  umistakable  and 
capable  of  existing  in  only  one  particular  year  out  of  several,  this 
must  settle  the  true  date,  or  else  the  Gospel  History  is  not  true  to 
nature  and  is  false  ! 

III.     The  Lunar  Calculations. 

\  ^}i.  A  re-calculation,  therefore,  of  the  astronomical  facts,  set 
forth  with  clearness  and  certainty,  is  what  every  inquirer  needs,  in 
order  to  determine  for  himself  beyond  a  doubt  the  date  of  crucifixion,  f 
This  calculation  requires,  that  we  enter  somewhat  into  the  complicated 
phenomena  of  the  moon's  motions,  which  are  so  numerous  and  intri- 
cate, that  nearly  fifty  particulars  have  to  be  minutely  adjusted  in  the 
reckoning  of  an  eclipse.:!:  However,  it  will  not  be  necessary  here  to 
exhibit  in  full  any  but  the  tncatt  reckoning  (with  the  two  largest  correc- 
tions), which  will  settle  the  days  and  hours  in  question,  and  which  may 
be  comprehended  by  all.  We  will  first  take  the  mean  time  of  new 
moon  in  our  day,  and  by  mean  reckoning  will  find  our  way  back  to  the 
new  moon  or  new  year  preceding  the  Saviour's  death. 

\  34.  We  find  by  the  Astronomical  Tables, ft  that  at  the  time  of  this 
writing,  in  A.  D.  1855,  the  mean  new  moon  fell  on  the  i8th  of  January, 
at  6h.  3m.  a.  m.,  Greenwich  time,  ||  which  in  the  longitude  of  Palestine 
was  2^  hours  later,  at  %%.   a.  m.IT     If  we  restore  the  twelve  days  of 

*  Hales'  New  Anal.,  in  Loco.     Clinton's  Fas.   Rom.  Vol.  ii.  p.  242. 

f  "If  we  could  determine  in  what  year,  between  A.  D.  28  and  A.  D. 
37,  the  passover  occurred  on  Thursday  or  Friday,  we  might  ascertain 
the  year  of  our  Savior's  crucifixion."  {Prof.  Packard  Bib.  Soc,  18 j8, 
p.  28g.)  This  is  the  candid  confession  of  an  article,  which  finds  and 
leaves  all  chronology  as  but  a  bank  of  fog.  It  reveals  the  want  and 
the  craving  of  many  minds. 

t  Dick's  Celestial  Scenery,  ch.  iv,  p.  113. 

ft  Gummere's  Astron.  Table  xviii.  Robinson's  University  Astronomy, 
Table  xi,  etc. 

II  See  Nautical  Almanac,  1855. 

IT  This  date  is  a  convenient  starting  point.  For,  being  so  near  to 
the  earth's  perihelion,  which  in  the  present  generation  is  January  i 
(See  Naut.  Al.),  the  true  new  moon  is  made  by  the  shape  of  the  earth's 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  31 

Gregorian  correction  which  iiave  been  omitted  (lo  in  the  i6th  century,* 
one  at  1700,  and  one  at  1800),  we  have  our  January  i8th  equivalent  to 
January  6  of  0/(f  Sty/e  Julian  reckoning,  which  it  is  necessary  to  use 
in  these  old  time  calculations.  Thus  have  we  the  time  O.  S.  of  the 
mean  new  moon  in  our  own  day  (viz..  1855.  January  6,  O.  S.,  at  8^ 
A.  M.,  in  Palestine);  and  we  are  prepared  to  trace  our  way  back  from 
this  to  any  new  moon  in  the  ancient  time. 

I  35.  Take,  for  instance,  the  new  moon  of  March,  A.  D.  3if.  We 
say,  A.  D.  1855 — A.  D.  31^1824  years X 365 '4^  =666, 2 16  days  from  Janu- 
ary 6,  O.  S.  1855,  back  to  January  6,  A.  D.  31.  As  this  carries  us  farther 
back  than  we  wish,  we  take  out  thirty-one  days  to  February  6,  and 
twenty-eight  days  to  March  6.  leaving  666,157  days  back  to  March  6, 
A.  D.  31.  This  number  of  days  is  found  to  contain  22,558  lunations  of 
the  moon,  or  waxings  and  wanings  of  zg}4  days  from  new  moon  to 
new.  Each  of  which  lunations  being  reckoned  at  the  exact  present 
length  of  a  lunation, t  the  whole  amount  to  666,151  days,  with  a  deci- 
mal (.015)  which  gives  ><  hour  over.  But  as,  by  reason  of  the  moon's 
acceleration  of  motion,  its  present  lunations  are  slightly  shorter  than 
of  old,  making  nearly  three  hours  difference  in  the  past  twenty-six  cen- 
turies,!— therefore  we  must  add  to  the  lunations  of  eighteen  centuries 


orbit  but  i'4  hour  later  than  the  mean.  And  being  only  fifteen  hours 
before  the  moon's  mean  petigee,  (which  was  January  18,  at  9  p.  m.,  at 
Greenwich,  See  Appendix  E),  it  is  made  by  the  shape  of  the  moon's 
orbit,  but  i  '4  hour  later  than  the  mean.  So  that,  between  the  two  cor- 
rections, the  time  of  true  new  moon  is  only  zYx  hours  later  than  the 
mean,  viz.,  January  18,  1855,  8>^  a.  m.,  at  Greenwich.     (See  A'auf.  Ai.) 

*Oct.  5,  A.  D.  1582,  by  order  of  Pope  Gregory;  adopted  in  Eng- 
land, Sept.  3,  A.  D.  1752,  when  the  10  days  had  become  11.  See  Her- 
sche/,  I  926. 

+  We  take  this  rather  than  another  year,  because,  compared  with 
our  starting  point,  it  gives  an  even  number  of  4's  or  leap  days,  enabling 
us  to  multiply  by  365 '4^. 

j:  That  is,  29d. 5305885.  Hales  and  others  give  29d.  i2h.  44m.  2.s; 
yet  his  figuring  makes  the  last  decimal  figures  89.  Olmstead  says  2s. 8; 
vet  he  makes  the  last  decimal  figures  87.  So  the  Astronomy  of  Hind. 
Lyon's  Jewish  Calendar  has  2S.8283,  which  brings  the  last  decimal 
figures  83.  But  the  decimal  now  in  use  has  85,  as  we  here  use  it,  for 
the  nicety  of  which  we  are  indebted  to  the  courtesy  of  S.  H.  Wright, 
Astronomer  of  the  American  Almanac.  All  these  differences,  how- 
ever, can  not  affect  the  result  more  than  the  small  fraction  of  an  hour. 

II  It  is  found  that  the  moon's  present  motion  and  length  of  lunations 
are  a  little  too  quick  and  short,  to  reach  the  hour  of  an  eclipse  recorded 
by  the  Chaldeans  in  B.  C.  720,  but  carry  us  to  a  point  when  the  moon 
was  nearly  i>^  degree  past  the  sun.  {Olmstead'' s Astron.)  And  as  the 
moon  (moving  daily  13"^.  17640,  while  the  sun  moves  o". 98565),  gains  on 
the  sun  over  12°  every  day,  or  J4  a  degree  in  an  hour,  therefore  the 
phases  of  the  moon  were  nearly  three  hours  earlier  in  B.  C.  721,  than 
our  present  hmations  give  them. 


32  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

about  two  hours,  making  the  whole  amount  to  666,151  days  2>i  hours. 
This  lunar  amount  taken  from  the  above  Julian  amount  (666,157  days), 
leaves  a  remainder  of  5  days  21^  hours;  the  lunations  falling  that 
much  short  of  filling  up  the  Julian  years. 

As  therefore  the  time  of  mean  new  moon  was  in  A.  D.  1855  on  Janu- 
ary 6  O.  S.  at  8X  A.  M.  in  Palestine,  therefore  its  time  in  the  year  A.  D. 
31,  by  our  mean  reckoning  was  5  days  zV/i  hours  later  than  that  hour 
of  March  6,  namely,  March  12  at  5^  a.  m.,  as  the  mean  new  moon  in 
Palestine,  A.  D.  31. 

\  36.  How  was  it  in  the  adjacent  years  ?  If  we  multiply  zgd.  53  by 
12,  we  find  that  the  12  lunations  in  a  year  by  mean  reckoning,  amount 
to  254d.  36;  and  if  we  subtract  this  amount  from  365  days,  we  have  left 
lod.  63,  or  10  days  15  hours;  showing  that  the  mean  new  moom  in  any 
ordinary  year  comes  so  much  earher  than  the  year  before,  and  in  a 
leap  year,  when  there  are  366  days,  it  will  come  i  day  earlier  still. 

Therefore,  as  the  year  A.  D,  32  was  leap  year,  if  we  substract  1 1 
days  15  hours  from  March  12  (A.  D.  31),  at  5X  a.  m.,  we  find  that  the 
mean  new  moon  was  in  A.  D.  32,  February  29  at  z%  p.  m.;  as  well  as 
2gd.  i2%h  (2gd,  53)  afterward,  March  30  at  3>^  a.  m.  If  we  next  sub- 
tract 10  days  15  hours,  we  find  that  the  mean  new  moon  was,  in  A.  D. 
33,  March  ig  at  Yi  p.  m.  And  substracting  yet  again,  we  find  it,  in  A. 
D.  34,  March  8  at  g'/^  p.  m.,  or  2gd.  \'z)i\\.  afterward,  April  7  at  loX  a. 
M.  So,  on  the  other  hand,  if  to  the  hour  in  A.  D.  31  we  add  Wv&  10 
days  15  hours,  we  find  that  the  mean  new  moon  was  in  A.  D.  30,  March 
22  at  8^  p.  M.;  and  adding  again  we  find  it  in  A.  D.  zg.  April  2  at  \\% 

A.   M. 

Thus  we  have  the  mean  dates  of  those  new  moons.  And  we  shall 
arrive  at  the  subsequent  mea.n  full  moons  of  the  several  years,  by  add- 
ing to  each  the  half  of  a  full  mean  lunation,  or  14  days  18X  hours. 

§  37.  To  all  these  mean  dates,  there  are  two  considerable  correc- 
tions to  be  applied,  in  order  to  have  the  approximate  trtte  time  of  new 
moon  and  full  moon  in  each  case.  These  corrections  are  made  with 
reference  to  the  position,  ( I )  of  the  earth's  perihelion,  (II)  of  the 
moon' s perigee ,  as  relatively  situated  at  the  respective  dates.  But  these 
allowances  made  for  eccentricity  of  orbit  affect  only  the  hours  of  our 
calculation,  never  amounting  to  a  day.  And  we  need  not  here  give  the 
particulars  determining  their  respective  values,  but  will  only  give  their 
results;  referring  the  reader  for  the  details". to  our  examination  of  them 
elsewhere.  *  Nor  need  we  trouble  ourselves  in  this  investigation  with 
the  nicety  of  minutes  and  seconds,  a  certainty  of  the  day  and  hour 
being  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose. 

I  38.  Summing  up.  therefore,  all  our  calculations,  we  obtain  as 
follows: 

*  The  full  complicated  process  is  given  in  Appendix  E.  ^  go. 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST 


33 


True 

New  Moon. 

Year 

Mean 

Corrections 

True 

A.  D. 

New 

Moon. 

I          II 

New             Moon. 

29 

Apl.    2 

II^4^+A.   M. 

+3Xh+4Xh 

7X+P.  M.      Apl.     2 

30 

Mar.  22 

8K      P.  M. 

+4       ~5H 

7K      P-  M.     Mar.  22 

31 

Mar.  12 

5H       A.   M. 

+4       -9H 

0         A.  M.     Mar.   12 

32 

Mar.  30 

S'A       A.   M. 

+3>^    -9^, 

gU      p.  M.     Mar.  29 

33 

Mar.  19 

/z       P.   M. 

+4       -3X 

11^4^      A,  M.     Mar.  19 

34 

Apl.    7 

loX       A.   M. 

+3>^    +  1^ 

2'A       p.  M.      Apl.     7 

True 

Full  Moon. 

Year 

Mean 

Corrections 

True 

A.  D. 

Full 

Moon. 

I           II 

Full              Moon. 

29 

Apl.  17 

6            A.   M. 

+2Xh— sXh 

3>^      A.  M.      Apl.   17 

30 

Apl.    6 

3        P-  M. 

+3K     +2>^ 

9         p.  M.      Apl.     6 

31 

Mar.  27 

0            A.   M. 

+3       +8K 

11^      A.  M.     Mar.  27 

32 

Apl.  13 

gH     P.  M- 

+3       +9^ 

IO>^       A.  M.       Apl.    14 

33 

Ap  .    3 

6^       A.   M. 

+3^    +6 

4%      P.  M.      Apl.     3 

34 

Apl.  22* 

4.yi       A.   M. 

-^2/2    -\-iy2 

8}4        A.  M.        Apl.    22 

*  Or,  Mar.  23,  the  very  day  of  the  true  equinox  then. 
Note. 

Verification.  In  A.  D.  31,  the  mean  full  moon  Mar.  27  at  o  a.  m. 
4-29d.  i2>^h.=Apl.  25  at  %  p.  M.+corrections  2X+6>(=9  p.  m.  of  Apl. 
25;  and  Pingre's  Tables  give  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  as  occuiTing  in 
"  A.  D.  31,  Apl.  25  at  9  p.  M."  (See  here  |  ig,)  This  proves  to  a  cer- 
tainty that  our  reckoning  is  correct. 

Again,  Benson  gives  the  full  moon  as  "at  the  begmning oi  Apl.  17, 
A.  D.  29,  (here  3^4  a.  m.,  Clinton  says  10  a.  m.);  and  he  puts  the  preced- 
ing new-moon  as  "Apl.  2  at  8  p.  m.",  (here  about  7K  p.  m.,  Clinton  says 
3  p.  M.).     This  is  close  agreement  with  our  result. 

Our  list  above  also  proves  Cunninghame's  statement  that  the  full 
moon  in  A.  D.  29  was  Mar.  18,  correcting  Greswell's  Apl.  16.  It  fur- 
ther confirms  Usher  {annals  yr.  4036)  and  Hales,  in  saying  that  the 
paschal  full  moon  of  A.  D.  33  was  Apl.  3,  of  A.  D.  32  was  Apl.  14,  and 
of  A.  D.  31  was  Mar.  27.  At  the  same  time,  it  shows  the  inaccuracy 
of  Dodwell  and  Manne  in  calling  the  latter  Mar.  26;  and  the  random 
notion  of  Petavius,  setting  it  at  Mar.  23.  (See  Hales'  as  before  cited, 
§19.) 

Our  dates  will  be  found  in  accord  with  the  noted  eclipses  calcu- 
lated for  ancient  times;  that  near  Augustus'  death,  Sep.  27,  A.  D.  14 
{Hales  /,  p.  yd,  also  Edtn.  Cyclo.);  that  near  Herod's  death,  March 
13,  B.  C.  4,  at  5-3  a.  m.  (Hates'  Anal.,  IVhiston  in  Jos.  Antiq.,  17,  vi: 
4,  Edinburgh  Cyclo.,  etc.  See  calculation  of  this  eclipse  at  end  of 
Ast.  Led.  Latin  ed.  p.  451,  2.)  Exact  agreement  will  also  be  found 
with  the  "  Eclipse  of  Thales,"  as  demonstrated  in  the  Philosophical 
Transactions  of  the  Royal  Society  of  London,  (Vol.  C.  I.,  i8ri,  p.  220); 
namely,  Sep.  30,  B.  C.  610  at  "8%  a.  m.,  conjunction  at  Greenwich. 
Usher  and  Prideaux  give  this  as  the  eclipse  of  Sep.  20,  B.  C.  601; 
Bayer  and  Hales,  as  that  of  May  18,  B.  C.  603. 

Being  thus  in  agreement  with  all  the  data  laid  down  by  astrono- 
mers, there  cannot  be  any  possible  mistake  about  these  our  dates  here 


34 


NEW   TEST.    PERIOD   G 


set  forth.  (Bowyer  has  also  given  tables  of  the  time  of  the  paschal 
full  moons,  in  his  "Conjectures  on  the  N.  T."  note  on  John  vi.) 
Thurman  says  the  new  moon  of  A.  D.  30  was  MaF.  22  at  7%  p.  m.  in 
agreement  with  our  7>^  p.  m. 

IV. — The  Data  Combined. 

I  39.  It  only  remains  to  ascertain  the  days  of  the  week  on  which  the 
respective  full  moons  and  passovers  fell.  As  the  days  of  the  week 
change  i  in  every  ordinary  year,  they  would  return  to  the  same  place 
every  7  years  but  for  the  intervention  of  a  leap-day  every  4  years. 
This  prevents  a  sychronism  until  4  times  7  or  28  years;  at  which  time 
the  order  returns  precisely  as  before.  The  days  of  the  week  are, 
therefore,  the  same  at  an  interval  of  any  number  of  times  28  years, 
say  65  times  28  or  1820  years.  That  is,  the  days  of  the  week  are  at 
the  same  place  in  the  Julian  Year  A.  D.  1854  (O.  S.,  without  the 
Gregorian  correction),  as  they  were  1820  years  before,   in  A.  D.  34. 

§40.  But  in  A.  D.  1854,  by  the  Almanacs,  March  12,  N.  S., 
which  is  equivalent  to  O.  S.  March  o  (7,  14,  21,  28,)  was  Sunday. 
Therefore,  March  o,  {7,  14,  21,  28),  A.  D.  34,  being  1820  years  before, 
was  also  Sunday.  And  since,  in  any  ordinary  year  having  365  days, 
one  more  than  even  weeks  (52X7=364),  any  Julian  date  comes  one 
day  later  in  the  week  than  it  did  the  year  before,  while  after  a  leap- 
day  it  comes  two  days  later  than  before;  therefore,  March  o  (7,  14, 
21,  28)  in  A.  D.  34  being  Sunday,  in  A.  D.  33  it  was  Saturday,  in  A. 
D.  32  Friday,  in  A.  D.  31  (passing  a  leap-day)  it  was  Wednesday, 
in  A.  D.  30  Tuesday,  in  A.  D.  29  Monday,  and  in  A.  D.  28,  Sunday,* 

*  Remember  this  fact:  Julian  dating  gives  Sunday,  March  o  (7, 
14,  21,  28)  in  A.  D.  0(28,  56,  etc.).     Therefore  we  have  this  useful 

Rule. — Divide  the  year  A.  D,  by  28,  and  the  remainder  by  7,  and 
to  the  second  remainder  add  i  for  every  4  contained  in  the  first  re- 
mainder: the  result  shows  the  days  to  be  added  to  Sunday  on  March, 
o  (7,  14,  21,  28)  of  the  given  year  A.  D.  Then,  if  necessary,  reduce  to 
the  N.  S.  or  Gregorian  date. 

Note. — It  will  be  already  N.  S.  if  we  reckon  the  A.  D.  as  so  many 
years  after  1700  for  the  i8th  century,  after  1796  for  the  19th  century, 
after  1892  for  the  20th  century.  Always  number  Jan.  and  Feb.  in  the 
previous  year.  With  a  B.  C.  date,  take  1  less  than  the  year  and  sub- 
tract the  result  (increased  by  i  if  there  be  a  remainder  when  dividing 
by  the  4)  from  Sunday. 

Examples.— K.  D.  34  h-  28  leaves  6,  which  h-  7  leaves  6  with  +  i  (in 
the  previous  6)  =  7,  i.  <?.,  o  days  after  Sunday,  giving  us  Sunday, 
March  o  (7,  14,  21,  28),  in  A.  D.  34. 

Again,  A.  D.  1854-1796  =  58  years  -¥■  28  leaves  2  which  h-  7  leaves 
2  with  +  o  (in  the  previous  2)  =  2,  z.  e. ,  2  days  after  Sunday,  viz,  Tues- 
day, March  o  (7,  14,  21,  28)  A.  D.  1854.  So  that  the  N.  S.  March  12, 
A.  D.  1854,  was  Sunday  as  seen  above. 

Again,  on  what  day  of  the  week  will  July  4,  1894  fall?  The  1894 — 
1756=  98  yrs  -f-  28  leaves  14,  which  -4-  7  leaves  o  with  -|-  3  (in  the  pre- 
vious 14)  =  3,  z.  ^,,  3  days  added  to  Sunday,  viz.  Wednesday,  March  o, 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST 


35 


Oj 

OJ 

U> 

"t 

VO 

•uiiuiOQ   ouuy 

> 

2 

S 

S 

S 

> 

p 

P 

P 

P 

^ 

•-1 

M 

• 

:^ 

"P 

^ 

n 

to 

i^ 

pig. 

to 

:^ 

o 

i^'^ 

O 

-J 

^ 

K 

"B 

> 

y 

> 

y 

y 

s 

s 

g 

s 

s 

s 

H 

^ 

:^ 

H 

H 

en 

c 

c 

cr 

fD 

3 

c 

> 

> 

> 

2 
p 

> 

> 

Ul 

-p. 

o 

M 

vO 

Co 

£L 

^ 

i^ 

;^ 

K 

i^ 

> 

y 

> 

> 

!* 

> 

s 

s 

S 

s 

S 

s 

m 

C/5 

^ 

1 

H 

g; 

^ 

p 

2. 
p 

a. 
p 

§ 

P 

o  ti  o 

•<; 

00 

u> 

to 

" 

o 

00 

-^ 

>-i 

to 

»0 

" 

o 

So 

^ 

S^ 

•      0) 

> 

2 

S 

s 

S 

> 

p       2:  • 

p 

p 
•-1 

p 

P 
■-1 

"^ 

^- 

00 

§ 

(-0 

M 

OJ 

^ 

•4^ 

H 

^ 

1^ 

H 

^ 

;^ 

i 

> 

> 

o 

> 

re 
en 

> 

"13 

o 
c 

> 

fill 

p  o  2-  < 

u 

"H- 

P 

D. 

1-1 

to 

K) 

u> 

4^ 

^ 

■^ 

00 

u-  o 

> 


O)     o 


t;   o    I-. 

^  a   o 


>  ^ 


o    re 
cr  en 


en    rt- 


A.  D.  1894,  with  (Mar.  31,  April  30,    May  31,  June  30  to  July  4=  126 
days  -H  7  leaves)  o  change,  giving  Wednesday,  July  4,  A.  D.  1894. 

Once  more,  on  what  day  of  the  week  will  fall  inauguration  day 
in  A,  D.  1901?  The  1901 — 1892=  9  yrs,  which  -r-  28  leaves  9,  which  -r- 
7  leaves  2  with  +  2  (in  the  previous  9)=  4,  i.  e.^  4  days  after  Snnday, 
viz.  Thursday,  March  o,  A.  D.  1901.  So  that  we  have  Monday  March 
4,  A.  D.  1901. 


So  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

§  42.  We  have  a  striking  proof  from  archaeology,  that  our  astro- 
nomical calculations  here  are  accurate.  "  An  inscription  of  the  year 
A.  D.  26  has  been  found  at  Berenike  in  Egypt,  in  which  the  last  day 
of  the  feast  of  tabernacles  (observed  by  the  Jews)  is  said  to  have  oc- 
curred on  the  Egyptian  Paophi  25th,  which  was  the  Julian  October 
22d."  {/.  Sc/iTi/ar/z,  archceologist.  New  York,  i8go.  See  his  letter 
Jan.  ir,  'go.)  The  last  day  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles  wasat  the  sunset 
ending  the  21st  day  of  the  7th  Jewish  month;  so  that,  as  this  was  in 
that  year  on  Oct.  22,  the  ist  day  of  that  7th  month  began  on  the  ist 
day  of  October.     Take  out  the  6  previous  lunar  months  (alternating 

29  and  30  days)  /.  e.,  177  days,  and  we  are  brought  to  April  7  as  the  be- 
ginning of  I  Nisan  that  year.  But  by  the  Lunar  Cycle  of  those  times 
(as  in  the  table  here),  A.  D.  26  was  cycle  year  14,  having  Epact  23  (see 
before  I  28  note);  that  is,  the  month  was  23  days  old  on  March  31,  and 
I  of  the  next  month  Nisan  would  be  after  7  days,  viz. :  on  April  7,  just 
as  the  inscription  makes  it. 

§43.  This  is  a  perfect  demonstration,  r not  only  that  the  Jewish 
months  were  certainly  lunar  months,  but  also  that  those  lunar  months 
began  about  two  days  after  the  moon's  conjunction  with  the  sun,  as 
we  have  shown;  and  that  the  Greek  Lunar  Cycle  of  those  times  gave 
the  very  date  of  Jewish  new  year  then,  showing  correctly  the  Jewish 
dating  then,  as  given  in  the  table.  Our  tabular  exhibit  is  thus  shown 
to  be  accurate  beyond  a  question.* 

The  table  proves  the  utter  impossibility  of  Hales'  and  Clinton's 
theories,  that  our  Lord  was  crucified  in  one  or  the  other  of  those  years, 
A.  D.  29  or  31. t  From  this  table  it  moreover  appears  that  the  only 
years  in  which  the  crucifixion  date  is  astronomically  possible  are  A.  D. 

30  and  33;  and  that  the  former,  A.  D.  30,  is  the  only  year  astronomi- 
cally probable,  as  alone  having  the  full  moon  on  the  Thursday  night 

*  Our  table  agrees  exactly  with  "Ferguson's  Astronomy,  where  there 
is  a  calculation  of  the  exact  time  of  full  moon  in  A.  D.  30,  viz.,  as  be- 
ing Apl.  6."  (/.  Sc/i-cvarts,  as  above.)  The  table  shows  that  Clinton 
is  right  in  calling  Apl.  17  A.  D,  29,  Sunday;  and  that  the  computation 
which  Hales  cites  from  Newton,  Bacon,  etc.,  is  correct,  in  making  the 
paschal  Mar.  27,  A.  D.  31,  to  be  on  Tuesday;  and  it  thereby  shows  the 
fallacy  of  Hales'  surmise,  that  this  might  have  been  later  in  the  week. 
The  table  also  agrees  with  the  tables  in  Nicholas'  Chron.  Hist,  in 
Lardner's  series;  for  these  give  the  year  A.  D.  29  with  O.  S.  Domini- 
cal Letter  B,  which  puts  March  i  on  Tuesday,  as  above.  The  whole 
matter  is  fully  exhibited  in  my  essay  on  "  Cycles  and  Epacts." 

f  Hales'  argument  for  A.  D.  31,  that  the  early  passover  of  Mar.  27 
agrees  with  the  statement  of  John  xviii:  18,  that  "they  had  made  a  fire 
of  coals,"  is  of  little  weight;  since  the  difference  of  10  days  later  would 
make  but  a  small  difference  in  the  weather,  and  a  little  fire  was  needed 
in  the  night  air  all  along  through  the  spring. 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  37 

wherein   Christ  ate  the  supper,  and  having  the  Jews'  passover  on  the 
Friday  wherein  he  suffered.* 

The  True  Date. 
§  44.  This  A.  D.  30,  therefore,  must  have  been  the  true  date.  For, 
by  astronomical  demonstration,  the  only  infallible  method,  it  is  settled, 
that  the  crucifixion  could  not  be  either  in  A.  D.  31  or  in  A.  D.  29, 
whei'e  the  systems  of  Hales  and  of  Clinton  assign  it;  while  A.  D.  33, 
the  only  possible  alternative  for  A.  D.  30,  is  proved  to  be  astronomi- 
cally improbable,  as  well  as  historically  false,  according  to  Chap.  I  of 
this  discussion. 

There  remains,  therefore,  a  moral  certainty,  that  Christ's  death 
OCCURRED  IN  THE  YEAR  A.  D.  30,  FRIDAY,  ApRiL  7TH,  the  i6th  year 
after  Augustus'  death,  and  the  33d  year  after  Herod's  death,  just 
where  the  early  Christians  and  fathers  had  it  down  to  the  4th  century  of 
the  church. 

I  45.  All  cycle  theories  of  the  intermediate  ages  being  dropped, 
this  last  or  astronomical  age  comes  into  harmony  with  the  first  or 
historical  age;  and  what  might  well  have  been  supposed  is  verified — the 
people  of  that  very  age  knew  their  own  times  best.  By  return  to  their 
reckoning,  we  find  everything  reconciled, — the  evident  33  years  of 
Christ's  life,  the  30  years  at  his  baptism  and  the  3  of  his  ministry; 
while  the  imagined  difficulty  concerning  the  "  15th  year  of  Tiberius," 
is  found  to  be  (as  the  15th  year  from  his  partnership  with  Augustus) 
no  difficulty  at  all.     And  so,  as  the  Saviour's  birth  and  baptism  have 

*The  crucifixion  was  certainly  as  late  as  the  14th  of  the  ist  month; 
and  as  the  14th,  therefore,  could  not  end  later  than  Friday  at  sunset, 
the  month  and  year  could  not  commence  later  than  Friday  also,  two 
weeks  before.  This  in  A.  D.  33  was  Mai'.  20,  when  the  moon  was  only 
1%  day  old,  less  than  seems  requisite,  whether  they  began  the  month 
by  sight  or  by  the  cycle.  On  the  other  hand,  in  A.  D.  30,  this  Fri- 
day night  of  New  Year  came  March  24,  when  the  moon  was  nearly 
2  days  old,  as  required  by  either  mode  of  commencing  the  months. 

If  any  one  chooses  to  maintain  (as  some  do),  that  Christ  died  on  the 
15th  of  Nisan  instead  of  the  14th,  or  on  Thursday  instead  of  Friday, 
he  will  only  be  compelled  the  more  decisively  to  renounce  A.  D.  33, 
and  accept  A.  D.  30  as  the  year.  But  to  claim  (as  some  7th  day 
"  Sabbatarians"  now  do),  that  the  15th  Nisan  ended  as  early  as  Thurs- 
day, is  to  violate  entirely  the  astronomical  data, — putting  the  new 
month  and  new  year  before  the  occurrence  of  the  new  moon. 

"Roger  Bacon  found  by  computation,  that  the  paschal  full  moon 
of  A.  D.  33  fell  on  Friday;  and  this  circumstance  led  him  and  several 
others,  Scaliger,  Usher,  etc.,  to  conclude,  that  this  was  the  year  of 
the  crucifixion.  But,  admitting  the  computation  to  be  exact,  as  after- 
wards verified  by  Scaliger,  Newton,  Manne  and  Lang,  this  very  cir- 
cumstance proves  that  this  was  not  the  year  of  the  crucifixion;  for  the 
true  paschal  full  moon  then  was  the  day  before,  on  Thursday,  when 
Christ  celebrated  the  passover. "     [Hales  /,  p.  gg.) 


38  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

been  by  degrees  restoi'ed,  from  their  wrong  calculation  in  the  old  vul- 
gar chronology,  back  to  the  place  where  the  first  Christians  assigned 
them, — in  like  manner  {is  the  crucifixion,  by  the  harmony  of  history 
and  astronomy,  now  at  length  restored.  * 

^  46.  This  conclusion  of  our  calculations  is  corroborated  by  John 
ii:  20,  where  the  Jews  observe,  at  Christ's  first  passover,  "forty  and 
six  years  was  this  temple  in  building;"  or  we  may  read,  "  forty-six  years 
this  temple  /las  been  built  upon.'"  \  Now  Herod  began  this  new  con- 
struction, t  as  Josephus  definitely  tells  us,  in  "the  i8th  year"  of 
his  reign,  %%  and  died  when  he  had  reigned  34  years;  ||  and  so,  as  his 
death  was  in  B.  C.  4,  his  i8th  year  was  in  B.  C.  20.^  To  this  add  46 
years,  ff  and  we  are  carried  to  A.  D.  27,  the  very  time  of  Christ's  first 


*  "  Ferguson,  in  his  Astronomy,  has  shown  that  in  A.  D.  30,  there 
was  a  paschal  full  moon  on  Thursday,  April  6,  which  Bengel  thought 
was  the  true  date"  of  passion.  {Prof.  Packard,  in  Bib.  Sac,  18 j8,  p. 
299.)  Why  has  Bengel  been  so  long  alone  in  this  correct  identification 
of  the  year  of  passion  as  A.  D.  30  ? 

Postcript.  When  this  treatise  was  written  (in  A.  D.  1855),  we  could 
find  no  writer  adopting  A.  D.  30.  Soon  afterward  came  from  Gei-many 
Weisler's  acceptance  of  that  year;  and  in  1869,  Thurman  was  found 
adopting  it  in  America.  Now  (in  1893)  A.  D.  30  is  very  commonly  ac- 
cepted as  the  date.  So  Dr.  Simon  of  England  gives  it  from  Gaspari, 
in  the  Bib.  Sacra,  July,  1871,  p.  469. 

f  "  '  This  temple  Iiath  /V(?«  six  and  forty  years  building.'  Dr.  Light- 
foot  has  well  shown  that  the  oiiginal  word  may  signify  as  we  here  ren- 
derit."  {Doddtidge,  Expos.  Jn.,ii:  20.)  Thefacts  "amend  our  English 
translation  to  read,  '46  years  hath  been  building.'"  (Hates,  So 
Calinet,  Scott,  David  Brown,  etc.) 

X  He  did  not  finish  it,  but  the  Jews  kept  adding  to  and  adorning  it. 
For,  Josephus,  as  late  as  A.  D.  65,  (Antiq.  20,  ix:  7),  speaks  of  its 
being  then  at  length  finished,  and  the  workmen  dismissed.  (Compare 
John  viii:  59,  and  x:  31.)  So  Whiston's  translation,  '  46  yeai^s  hath 
this  temple  been  built,'  is  not  only  inapplicable  but  unnecessary;  as 
well  as  Fleming's  reference  of  this  passage  to  the  times  of  Nehemiah. 

XX  Antiq.  15,  xi:  i,  5,  6.     ||  Antiq,  17,  viii:  i. 

ITJosephus  says  expressly  (in  Bk.  16),  that  Herod's  28th  year, 
when  he  held  the  dedication,  10  years  after  he  began  to  build,  was  in 
the  i92d  Olympiad.  This  ended  in  B.  C.  8;  therefore,  his  i8th  year, 
when  he  began  to  build,  was  as  soon  as  B.  C.  18.  He  also  tells  us  (14, 
xii;  5,  comp.  with  17,  viii:  i),  that  three  years  before  Herod  began  to 
reign  was  the  184th  Olympiad.  This  ended  in  B.  C.  40;  so  that,  his 
reign  could  not  begin  later  than  B.  C.  37  (as  all  agree),  or  his  i8th  year 
later  than  B.  C.  20,  as  above. 

ff  Doddridge  thus  dates  from  B.  C.  20,  but  reckons  47  years  (47th) 
to  A.  D.  28,  so  as  to  agree  with  the  delayed  view  of  Christ's  death,  as 
A.  D.  31.  While  Hales  himself  (Vol.  H,  p.  601)  reckons  only  45  years 
(46th)  from  B.  C.  17  (  !  )  to  A.  D.  28,  (by  mistake  of  adding),  this  being 
really  but  44  years.  So  Calmet  dates  from  B.  C.  17,  presuming  to  say 
that  two  years  after  Herod's  i8th  year  were  consumed  in  preparation. 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  39 

passover,  three  years  before  his  death  in  A.  D.  30,  as  our  demonstra- 
tion shows. 

§47.  The  same  conchision  is  still  further  corroborated  by  "the 
sign  of  Jonas,"  given  by  Christ  not  long  before  his  death.  To  the 
Pharisees  demanding  a  sign,  he  answered:  "A  wicked  and  adulterous 
generation  seeketh  after  a  sign;  and  no  sign  shall  be  given  unto  it, 
but  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas.  And  he  left  them  and  departed."  * 
The  sign  did  not  now,  as  on  a  former  occasion,  f  mention  his  resurrec- 
tion, but  referred  rather  to  the  Ninevites,  who,  to  save  their  city  from 
destruction,  "repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonas,":]; — a  fit  sign  of 
present  duty  (Jesus  would  teach)  in  view  of  the  impending  danger 
which  sonie  of  "this  generation  "  should  live  to  see.  Jonah  came  cry- 
ing: "  Yet  40  days  [prophetic  form  of  40  years  ||  ]  and  Nineveh  shall 
be  overthrown."^  Such  was  the  sign  to  the  Ninevites;  and  the  same 
belonged  to  "  this  generation."  For  Christ  was  now  by  this  sign  pro- 
claiming: "Yet  40  years  and  Jerusalem  shall  be  overthrown."  And, 
according  to  our  determination,  it  was  just  40  years  from  the  death  of 
Christ  in  A,  D.  30,  when  he  finished  his  wai-ning,  to  A.  D.  70,  when 
Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  ff 

And  thus  is  the  year  A.  D.  30  confirmed  as  the  year  of  Christ's 
death,  by  references  backward  and  forward,  both  historic  and  pro- 
phetic; while  itself  absolutely  determined  as  the  year  by  historical  and 
astronomical  demonstration. 

V.     Important  Results. 

?  48.  From  this  demonstration  of  the  time  at  which  Christ  died, 
we  not  only  arrive  at  this  fact  so  important  in  itself,  but  we  also  de- 
rive therefrom  other  highly  valuable  i^esults,  which  we  elsewhere 
more  fully  discuss. 

I.     We  help  to  settle  the  long-mooted  controversy  concerning  the 


Doddridge  countenances  the  same  idea,  reckoning  47  years  to  A.  D. 
30,  so  as  to  make  out  the  Usher  view  of  Christ's  death  as  in  A.  D.  33. 
Whereas,  all  such  preparing  by  Herod  came  before,  from  his  i6th  to 
his  i8th  year,  as  we  learn  fi^om  Josephus  (War.  i,  xxi:  i);  and  he  ex- 
pressly tells  us  (Ant.  15,  xi:  5,  6)  that  the  main  temple  was  done  (not 
prepared  for)  in  a  year  and  a  half  after  the  beginning  in  the  i8th  year, 
and  tfie  cloistei^s  in  eight  years  more,  so  that  all  his  erecting  was 
finished  in  the  loth  year  after,  viz.:  in  his  28th  year.  The  falsity  of 
those  datings  of  the  "46  years"  by  different  writers,  appears  at  once 
from  the  simple  reckoning  above. 

*  Mat.  xvi:  4;  Mark  viii:  13.     f  Mat.  xii:  40. 

X  Lu.  xi:  29-32.      II  Ezek.  iv:  6,  etc.     ^\  Jonah  iii:  4. 

tt  The  generally  acknowledged  date. 


40  NEW   TEST.    PERIOD   G 

post-paschal  theory  of   the  crucifixion,*  and  the  double  passover  of 
Jesus  and  the  Jews,  f 

2.  We  adjust  all  the  dates  of  our  Saviour's  ministry;  fixing  the  time 
of  his  tabernacle  sermon,  of  his  dedication  discourse,  and  of  his  clos- 
ing labors  with  many  other  like  intei"esting  determinations. 

3.  We  fix  still  more  certainly  the  year  of  Herod's  death;  and  we 
establish  the  date  of  Chi^ist's  nativity  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt; 
at  the  same  time  bringing  to  light  the  true  history  and  basis  of  our 
vulgar  Christian  Era.  In  fact,  we  have  thus  a  fixed  and  sure  sta7-ting 
point  for  the  whole  Bible  Chronology. 

4.  We  settle  the  accuracy  of  Daniel's  "70  weeks,"  as  reckoned  by 
Usher,  Prideaux  and  others  (from  the  7th  of  Artaxerxes,  B.'  C.  437,  to 
A.  D.  34=490  years);  by  finding  the  crucifixion,  A.  D.  30,  at  the  very 
middle  of  the  70th  week,  as  required  by  Daniel's  vision.  (Dan.  ix:  27.) 
And  thus  we  have  a  more  certain  basis  for  the  hitherto  uncertain  cal- 
culation of  prophetic  dates.:}: 

5.  But  chiefly,  we  furnish  a  most  convincing  demonstration  of  the 
historical  truth  of  Christianity,  such  as  infidels  must  find  it  impossible 
to  gainsay.  The  scientific  accuracy  of  the  recorded  date,  proves 
THE  genuine  accuracy  OF  THE  NARRATED  FACT.  And  the  determinate 
time  of  crucifixion  cuts  off  the  sceptical  query,  whether  there  was  any 
such  event  as  the  crucifixion  of  Christ. 

\  49.  No  event  can  be  historically  assigned  to  a  particular  day,  with 
a  coi'rect  indication  of  the  moon's  age  or  aspect  on  that  day,  except  in  one 


*  This  post-paschal  theory,  that  the  crucifixion  was  not  on  the  14th, 
but  on  the  15th  Nisan,  after  the  passover  had  been  eaten  by  the  Jews, 
we  fully  discuss  in  Appendix  D,  i^  80.  (See  also  a  full  discussion  by 
Ranch  in  the  Bib.  Repository  for  1834,  p.  108.) 

f  It  seems  as  if  Thursday,  April  6th,  A.  D.  30,  could  not  have 
ended  the  14th  Nisan;  because  it  was  before  the  full  moon,  in  con- 
travention of  all  we  have  here  shown.  (See  'i  31.)  Therefore,  we 
acknowledge  a  double  paschal  observance,  Thursday  night  by  Christ, 
and  Friday  night  by  the  Jews.  Hales  agrees  with  this,  and  thinks  it 
arose  from  the  double  reckoning  of  months,  by  sight  and  by  cycle; 
seen  also  in  the  duplicate  new  moon  day  of  the  modern  Jews.     {I  80.) 

t  Josephus  (Antiq.  11:  v.  i,  2)  wrongly  puts  the  decree  or  "com- 
mandment "  given  to  Ezra,  as  in  "  the  7th  year  of  Xerxes"  (B.  C.  478, 
instead  of  the  correct  B.  C.  457).  This  shows  a  common  error  of  those 
New  Testament  times,  by  which  the  "70  weeks"  of  Daniel  (or  490 
years)  "from  the  going  forth  of  the  commandments  to  restore  and 
build  Jerusalem  unto  the  Messiah  the  Pi-ince,"  would  expire  about  (B. 
C.  578 — 490  yrs.==)  A.  D.  13.  So  that  then,  in  the  very  middle  of 
Christ's  life,  the  Jewish  people  were  set  upon  a  discussion  about  the 
expected  Messiah  living  then,  in  the  mood  we  find  them  at  Christ's 
public  appearing,  of  questioning  expectancy  and  wonderment.  This 
throws  a  remarkable  light  on  many  incidents  and  utterances  of  the 
Saviour's  ministry. 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  41 

of  two  ways,  either  {\)  by  being  so  assigned  artlessly,  at  the  very  time 
of  occurrence,  by  the  witnesses  of  the  actual  event  then  taking  place;  or 
else  (2)  by  being  laboriously  calculated  in  later  times,  by  the  precise 
developments  of  astronomy.     But, 

(I)  The  great  event  of  the  Gospel  is  assigned  by  its  writers  to  a 
particular  day  of  a  particular  year,  with  a  statement  of  the  paschal 
or  lunar  aspect  for  that  day;  and  the  correctness  of  that  assignment, 
as  being  at  the  only  possible  point  of  agreement  between  the  narra- 
tive and  the  moon's  position,  is  now  at  length  proved,  after  the  lapse 
of  18  centuries,  by  this  second  mode  of  assignment,  a  full  astronom- 
ical calculation,  with  all  the  modern  data. 

(II)  That  Gospel  assignment  was  made  long  before  this  exact 
reckoning  of  modern  astronomy  was  possible  in  making  the  assign- 
ment, or  even  imaginable  as  a  future  test  of  it.  And  it  was  so  evi- 
dently without  calculation  or  design,  that  the  year  itself  is  not  stated 
by  any  of  the  Gospel  writers,  but  is  made  sure  only  from  incidental 
allusions  gathered  from  them  all.  These  allusions,  such  as  Matthew's 
mention  of  Herod's  slaughter,  Luke's  mention  of  30  years  later,  John's 
mention  of  three  passovers  later  still — these  allusions  exhibit  not  even 
an  attempt  at  the  dating  of  Christ's  death;  and  yet,  when  combined, 
they  do  all  point  unmistakably  to  the  33d  year  after  Herod's  death, 
that  is  to  A.  D.  30,  the  very  year  required  by  astronomy,  as  the  cru- 
cifixion date. 

§  50.  (Ill)  Therefore  this  incidental  assignment  in  the  Gospel, 
given  with  accuracy  yet  unquestionably  without  calculation,  could 
have  been  made  only  in  the  other  method,  namely  at  the  very  time 
mentioned,  by  witnesses  of  the  actual  event  then  occurring  before 
them.*  Let  any  one  attempt,  without  exact  data,  in  a  fictitious  nar- 
rative, to  name  an  eclipse  or  a  full  moon  on  a  definite  day,  even  no 
longer  than  five  years  ago;  and  lo  !  how  certainly  will  astronomy  ex- 
pose the  fiction.  And  so,  by  astronomy  superadded  to  history,  the 
Gospel  is  proved  to  be  no  after  invention,  but  a  genuine  and  authen- 
tic narrative,  originating  in  the  very  times  and  among  the  very  events 
described  on  its  pages. 

Upon  this  basis  of  scientific  facts  rests  the  storj'  of  Jesus.  And 
thus  is  the  historic  origin  of  Christianity  determined,  beyond  the  peril 
of  assault ! 

*  "All  such  configurations  were  real  perceptions  of  the  human  eye, 
not  at  all  results  of  astronomical  calculations.  For,  without  the  Co- 
pernican  system  and  astronomical  tables,  which  were  denied  to  the 
ancient  world,  nobody  was  able  to  determine  what  places  of  the 
heaven  were  at  a  certain  time  occupied,"  etc.  (Seyfforth  Recent  Dis- 
cov.  p.  151.)  Cycles  were  not  yet  appHed  to  measure  large  intervals, 
and  if  so  applied,  being  inaccurate,  they  would  only  lead  astray,  as 
we  see  was  afterward  the  case. 


42  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

APPENDIX  A. 

(For  §  23.) 

Christ's    Resurrection    on    Sunday, 

And  His  Crucifixion  on  Friday. 

§  51.  That  Christ's  Resurrection  was  oil  Sunday  morning  early, 
was  never  called  in  question,  so  far  as  we  know,  until  now  (in  A.  D. 
1892),  some  yth-day  "  Sabbatarians  "  think  it  necessary,  for  the  fur- 
therance of  their  z>;«,  to  claim  with  strenuous  argument,  drawn  solely 
from  Mat.  xxviii:  1-6,  that  Christ  rose  before  sunset  on  Satui'day.  A 
complete  and  overwhelming  refutal  of  this  notion  is  Luke  xxiv:  21: 
"To-day  (Sunday  p.  m.)  is  tJie  third  day  ^mce  these  things  were  done," 
i.e.,  the  very  day  when  Christ  promised  to  rise.  Nothing  more  than 
this  really  needs  to  be  said  against  the  absurd  Saturday  scheme.  But 
that  no  claim,  however  unreasonable,  may  seem  to  be  slighted,  we  give 
the  following  exhibit: 

§  52.  (I)  As  to  Mat.  xxviii:  i.  The  best  scholars  think  this  verse 
expresses  the  time  as  very  early  Sunday  mornings  in  harmony  with 
Mark  xvi:  2;  Luke  xxiv:  i;  John  xx:  i,  (so  conceded  by  all).  But  it  is 
no  matter  whether  Matt. xxviii:  i,  means  Sunday  morning  early  or  Sat- 
urday at  sunset;  if  it  means  the  latter,  still  that  will  not  remove  the 
resurrection  from  its  assured  place  on  Sunday  morning.  For,  if  the 
statement  here  is,  that  the  women  came  to  the  tomb  Saturday  even- 
ing, then  the  order  of  events  in  ver.  1-6  is  chronological,  and  the 
descent  of  the  angel,  and  opening  of  the  tomb,  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  were  after  \^\%  women  had  come  and  gone,  they  having  "come 
to  see  the  sepulchre,"  and  left  it  till  morning  because  they  found  it 
sealed  up. 

The  only  way  in  which  a  Saturday  resurrection  is  loosely  inferred 
from  a  Saturday  night  coming  of  women,  is  by  interpolating  the  word 
"  had  "  into  verse  2,  so  making  it  read,  "and  behold  there  had  been  a 
great  earthquake,"  etc.,  that  is,  before  the  women  came.  And  Mr. 
Reihl  in  arguing  the  case  actually  quotes  the  Scripture  as  reading  in 
that  way, — "an  angel  had  descended"  and  "Jesus  had  risen,"  he 
reads  it.  Now,  it  is  true,  that  if  ver.  i  means  (as  commonly  supposed) 
early  in  the  morning,  then  a  previous  idea  must  be  implied  (not 
expressed)  in  ver.  2,  as  if  it  read  "  had."  But  this  cannot  Ise  claimed 
if  the  time  of  ver.  i  is  Saturday  p.  m.  In  that  case,  to  pi.l  in  "had  " 
is  a  plain  falsification  of  the  text.  Hence,  this  being  the  only  argu- 
ment for  a  Saturday  resurrection,  the  theory  at  once  and  forever 
perishes. 

I  53.  (II)  The  allied  facts  stated  in  the  history  all  instantly  crush 
the  notion  of  a  Saturday  resurrection. 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  43 

1.  In  their  morning  coming,  the  women  were  troubled  "and  they 
said  among  themselves,  Wh^o  shall  roll  us  away  the  stone  from  the 
door  of  the  sepulchre."  (Mark  xvi:  2,  3.)  Of  course,  then,  the  tomb 
had  not  been  found  open  the  night  before. 

2.  Their  morning  visit  was  "bringing  the  spices  which  they  had 
prepared"  to  anoint  the  body.  (Lu.  xxiv:  i.)  Of  course,  then,  no  one 
had  heard  that  the  tomb  was  open  and  the  body  gone  the  night 
before. 

3.  Mary  Magdalene  in  the  morning  was  astonished  to  find  the 
tomb  open  and  Jesus  gone,  and  "she  runneth  and  cometh  to  Simon 
Peter"  and  John  to  tell  the  news  ;  whereupon  they  quickly  "ran  both 
together"  to  see  if  it  was  indeed  so.  (Jn.  xx:  1-4.)  Of  course,  then, 
nobody  had  visited  an  opened  and  emptied  tomb  the  night  before  ;  for 
if  so,  the  news  would  have  spread  like  wild-fire,  and  Peter  and  John 
would  not  have  been  coolly  delaying  a  visit  to  the  tomb. 

4.  Mat.  xxviii:  9,  saj's:  "And  as  they  went  to  tell  His  disciples 
behold  Jesus  met  them,  saying.  All  hail,"  etc.  This  could  not  be  Sat- 
urday evening,  because  Mark  xvi:  9,  tells  us;  "  Now  when  He  was 
risen  early  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  he  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magda- 
lene," /.  e.,  first  to  her  alone  (Jno.  xx:  14)  on  her  secofid  \\%\\.  Sunday 
morning,  says  Mr.  Reihl  himself.  Therefore,  as  Mat.  xxviii:  ver.  9,  be- 
longs to  Sunday  morning,  the  preceding  verses,  2-8,  also  belong  to 
Sunday  morning,  even  if  ver.  i  does  not. 

5.  No  report  of  an  open  tomb  was  carried  to  the  city  and  to  the  chief 
priests  by  the  guards  until  the  women  had  fled  from  the  tomb  in  the 
morning,  and  then  the  soldiers  were  hired  to  say,  "  His  disciples  came 
by  night  and  stole  him  away  while  we  slept.'"  (Mat.  xxviii:  11-13.)  Of 
course,  then,  they  could  not  tell  any  such  story  if  Jesus  arose  on 
Saturday,  nor  could  they  delay  their  tidings  till  Sunday  morning. 
Luke  xxiv:  22,  shows  the  same. 

§54.  (HI)  The  testimony  of  the  two  disciples  going  to  Emmaus 
Sunday  p.  m.  (Lu.  xxiv:  21,  revision):  "  It  is  now  the  third  day  since 
these  things  came  to  pass,"  is  perfectly  overwhelming  and  unanswer- 
able. When  presented  to  Mr.  Reihl  he  attempted  an  answer  by 
change  of  translation.,  and  when  this  was  shown  to  be  impossible  he 
attempted  again  an  evasion  of  the  language  equally  monstrous. 

(i)  He  claimed  that  the  Greek  word  rendered  "is"  should  be 
rendered  "brings,"  so  giving  as  the  statement  "  this  daj' ^;7;/_^jr  the 
third  day,"  which   means    (he  says)    "  this  is  the  fourth   day."  (  !  )* 

*  Yet,  strange  to  say,  a  writer  in  the  Bib.  Sacra,  (July,  1894,  p. 
510)  reiterates  this  folly.  He  says:  "  The  day  on  which  Cleopas 
spake  was  the  fourth,  but  it  brought  with  it  the  third  day  as  area dy 
past.''  (!)  Was  ever  such  senseless  utterance  in  so  respectable  a 
publication?  See  its  folly  shown  in  the  same  volume  of  the  Bib. 
Sacra,  p.  339. 


44  NEW   TEST.    PERIOD    G 

Only  smiling  at  the  absurdity  of  this,  we  gave  these  comments  on  the 
Greek  word. 

The  passage  in  Greek  is  idiomatic,  and  somewhat  difficult  for  an  un- 
critical reader  to  translate  into  smooth  English.  For  this  reason  vari- 
ations of  the  Greek  have  crept  in.  But  they  all  agree  in  meaning  with 
our  English  Bible,  and  with  all  versions  ever  made  into  any  language. 
The  Latin  reads  {tertimn  diem  Jiodie  agit)  ' '  To-day  it  leads  along  or 
carries  through  [more  simply  is]  the  third  day."  The  Greek  of  the 
revision  is  {trifeen  tauteen  hemcran  agei:  "This  third  day  it  carries  " 
itself,  or  is  going  on,  or  simply  it  is.  The  pith  of  the  statement  is  in 
the  expression  "this  third  oav";  and  the  question,  how  best  to 
render  the  idiomatic  a^^/ into  smooth  English  cannot  change  the  as- 
sertion made  of  this  Sunday  (the  time  of  speaking)  as  being  t/ie  third 
day. 

§  55.  This  verb  (agci)  ordinarily  means  carry,  bring  or  lead,  as  Mr. 
Reihl  says.  But  hardly  any  word  is  confined  to  a  single  shade  of 
meaning.  And  this  word,  tho'  usually  thus  transitive,  often  becomes 
intransitive  or  reflexive,  meaning  to  carry  one's  self,  i.  e.,  to  go  or  pass 
along;  as  translated  at  Matt,  xxvi:  46;  Mark  i;  38,  and  xiv:  42;Jn.  xi:  7, 
15,  16,  and  xiv:  31.  Winer,  in  his  N.  T.  Grammar  (§  38,  i),  states  this 
principle  concerning  many  Greek  verbs,  giving  this  verb  agein  as  his 
first  example,    "  let  us  carry  ourselves,"  i.  e.,   "  let  us  go." 

So  also  in  Mat.  xiv:  6,  "  Herod's  birthday  ieast going  on,''  common 
version,  "was  kept,"  revised  version  "came."  Also  Ac.  xix:  38, 
"the  courts  are  going  on,"  common  version  "  the  law  is  open,"  re- 
vised version  "the  courts  are  open,"  margin  "  court-days  are  kept." 
All  these  are  correct  renderings  of  the  word  agei,  whether  in  Latin  or 
Greek,  and  the  only  question  is,  which  is  the  smoothest  way  of  saying 
it  in  English. 

In  the  passage  before  us,  the  agei  is  impersonal  (without  a  nomina- 
tive), and  means  as  in  the  other  passages,  "  it  carries  itself,"  or  "it  is 
going  on."  The  verse  reads  literally,  "  And  besides  all  this  it  carries 
itself  (or  is  going  on)  this  third  day  since  these  things  were  done;  or 
to  simplify  the  English,  "  it  is  now  the  third  day  since  "  those  events, 
as  the  Revision  correctly  puts  it. 

Winer  (§  66,  3,  note)  says  of  this  Lu.  xxiv:  21,"  "in  Greek  the  mc- 
meralwa.^  considered  simply  as  a  predicate  adjunct  ";  so  that  he  trans- 
lates the  verse  thus:  "To-day  it  is  going  on  the  ///m/ day  since" 
these  events.  No  translator  ever  gave  the  passage  any  other  mean- 
ing, and  no  critical  scholar  can  discover  any  other  sense.  To  say 
that  it  means  "it  is  now  the  fourth  daj' "  is — what?  Let  the  candid 
reader  say  what. 

§  56.  (2)  The  final  device  was,  to  say  the  statement  means,  "This  is 
the  third  day  since  "  the  iotnb  was  sealed  on  "the  next  day,"  after  the 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  45 

crucifixion  (Matt,  xxvii:  62)!  But  what  had  the  remark  of  the  two  dis- 
ciples to  do  with  the  seahng  of  the  tomb  ?  They  said  expressly,  "to-day 
is  the  third  day  since  these  tilings  were  done,  of  luhich  they  were  speak- 
ing, namely,  the  '  delivering '  and  '  crucifying '  of  their  Master  (ver.  20). 
Why  did  they  emphasize  the  fact  and  the  expression  "  the  third  day?  " 
Because  that  was  the  expression  their  Master  had  repeatedly  used  in 
promise  to  them  (as  in  this  very  chapter,  ver.  7  and  46),  of  what  should 
next  occur  to  him  after  his  death;  so  that,  it  was  time  for  them  to  expect 
the  rising  he  spake  of.  It  was  his  words  and  his  promise  they  were 
tenderly  calling  to  mind;  and  to  suppose  that,  instead  of  this,  their 
language  only  referred  to  an  intervening  freak  of  the  officials,  which 
had  no  bearing  on  the  promise,  and  which  yet  they  were  trying  exactly 
to  date 'for  no  possible  reason,  such  an  assumption  is  simply  mon- 
strous. Plainly,  it  is  a  mere  get-off.  There  is  no  excuse  whatever  for 
such  attempts  to  mutilate  the  Word  of  God,  as  is  this  theory  of  a 
Saturday  resurrection. 

The  lately  discovered  apocryphal  "Gospel  of  Peter,"  understood 
to  have  been  written  about  A.  D.  150,  very  distinctly  puts  the  resurrec- 
tion on  Sunday,  I'epeatedly  calling  it  "the  Lord's  Day;"  which  shows 
how  certainly  that  designation  of  John  in  Revelation  (i:io)  was  from 
the  first  established  as  the  name  of  the  Christian  sacred  day.  For  in- 
stance, Tertullian  (A.  D.  190)  customarily  calls  Sunday  '' soio  die 
dominico  resurrectionist     {Meander,   Vol.  I,  p.  2g6,joi* 

II.     Christ's  Crucifixion  on  Friday. 
I  57.     Those  ' '  Sabbatarians  "  who  try  to  get  the  resurrection  on  Sat- 
urday, at  the  same  time  attempt  to  make  the  crucifixion  on  Wednesday. 
This  scheme  is  so  unreasonable,  that  we  do  not  need  to  waste  many 

*  "  In  the  Catholic  Epistle  ascribed  to  Barnabas  (companion  of  Paul 
as  some  think)  Sunday  is  designated  as  the  day  of  Jubilee  in  remem- 
brance of  Christ's  resurrection."  Neander,  Vol.  /,  p.  2gj.)  In  our 
copy  it  is  at  Chap,  xiii:  10.  Barnabas  here  puts  resurrection  and 
ascension  together,  as  if  occurring  on  one  and  the  same  Sunday. 
Neander  notices  this  view  of  the  ascension;  and  Prof.  Bush  (Resur.,  p. 
IJ7),  adopts  it.     See  John  xx:  17. 

Dr.  Wm.  De  Loss  Love,  in  his  treatise  on  the  Sabbath  (Bib.  Sacra, 
October,  1880,  p.  662)  shows,  that  the  Lord's  Day  resurrection  as  on 
Sunday  is  set  forth  by  Barnabas  in  the  first  century,  by  Pliny  the 
Younger  (A.  D.  112),  by  Justin  Martyr  (A.  D.  140),  by  the  Epistle  to 
the  Magnesians  (A.  D.  150),  by  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Corinth  (A.  D. 
170),  by  Melito,  Bishop  of  Sardis  (A.  D.  170),  by  Ireneus  (A.  D.  178), 
by  Clement  of  Alexandria  (A.  D.  189),  by  Bardesanes  (A.  D.  igo),  by 
Tertullian  (A.  D.  195),  by  Minucius  Felix  (A.  D.  198);  and  he  adds 
(p.  671):  "  In  the  first  century  after  the  apostle  John's  death,  we  find 
eleven  thoroughly  credible  witnesses  concurring  in  the  fact  that  the 
Christians  of  that  era  regarded  and  observed  the  first  or  '  Lord's  Day ' 
as  the  chief  of  all  days  (the  day  of  Christ's  resurrection);  and  we  find 
no  contemporary  testimony  to  the  contrary." 


46  NEW   TEST.    PERIOD    G 

words  upon  it.  We  simply  allude  to  the  evident  erroneousness  of  this 
Wednesday  theory,  in  its  professed  "harmony  "  (given  in  the  monthly 
"  Truth,''  Chicago,  April,  1892);  wherein  all  the  working  and  noisy  events 
of  Matt,  xx:  29  to  xxi:  17,  the  travel  from  Jericho  finished,  the  triumphal 
entry  to  Jerusalem,  the  casting  out  of  profaners  from  the  temple  (all 
five  days  before  the  passover,  as  seen  from  Jn.  xii:  i,  12) — these  all  are 
made  to  come  on  Saturday,  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  about  which  the  Jews 
were  so  scrupulous.  We  only  note  further,  the  fatuity  of  putting 
between  the  burial  and  the  resurrection  two  whole  Sabbath  days,  with 
a  third  whole  day  (Friday)  between  them!  Whereby  the  Saviour  is 
kept  "three  days  and  foto'  nights"  in  the  tomb,  in  violation  of  His 
own  words! 

But  there  are  some  good  Christian  people  who  have  doubted, 
whether  the  crucifixion  was  not  really  on  Thursday  instead  of  Friday.* 
And  for  their  sake  we  give  the  following  exhibit. 

I  58.  (i)  The  crucifixion  was  on  "the  preparation  of  the  passover," 
"  that  is  the  day  before  the  Sabbath  "  occuring  at  the  passover,  "for 
that  Sabbath-day  was  a  high-day."  John  xix:  14,  31,  42,  with  Mark 
XV :  42.  )f  And  no  subsequent  Sabbath  is  anywhere  referred  to  besides 
that  Sabbath  which  thus  immediately  followed  the  crucifixion.  In 
fact,  no  other  day  was  called  "  the  Sabbath  "  among  the  Jews,  besides 
the  weekly  Sabbath  and  the  solemn  day  of  atonement.  See  Lev,  xxiii: 
3,  32,  38;  (also  xvi:  31).  In  verses  24,  39,  it  is  a  different  Hebrew  word, 
shabatojie  (not  shabat),  translated  "  solemn  rest  "  by  the  Revisei"s. 

In  this  23d  of  Leviticus,  "the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath,  at  vers. 
II,  15,  16,  means  "the  morrow  after  the  weekly  Sabbath  occurring 
within  the  seven  days  of  unleavened  bread;  that  is,  as   the  weekly 

*  Thus  taught  Seyffarth  {Rec.  Discov.,  p.  184).  He  not  only  put 
the  crucifixion  on  Thursday,  but  he  also  had  it  before  the  equinox,  at 
the  new  instead  of  the  full  moon,  and  in  the  year  A.  D.  33.  Thurman, 
in  A.  D.  1868,  advocated  Thursday  as  the  day  of  crucifixion.  And 
Rev.  J.  K.  Aldrich  argued  the  same,  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  (July, 
1870,  p.  401),  and  afterward  in  a  book. 

f  Mark  xv:  42,  "  It  was  the  preparation,  that  is,  the  day  before  the 
Sabbath."  Some  say  there  was  no  "preparation"  for  the  weekly 
Sabbath.  But  certainly,  there  was  fi^om  the  very  first  commanded  a 
preparation  of  food;  see  Ex.  xvi:  22-26.  The  apocryphal  Gospel  of 
Nicodemus,  which  was  in  use  in  some  of  the  churches  200  years  after 
the  apostles,  says,  that  Joseph  of  Arimathea  was  imprisoned  after  his 
burial  of  Jesus  "  on  the  day  of  preparation  "  (Nic.  xi:  19),  which  was 
"before  the  Sabbath"  (ix:  7) — and  that  "after  the  Sabbath  "  (ver.  8, 
13),  and  then  after  "  the  40th  day"  (xi:25),  and  then  "on  the  morrow, 
being  a  preparation  day "  (ver.  17),  Joseph  came  again  before  the 
authorities;  that  is,  after  forty-two  days,  or  just  six  weeks  from  the 
crucifixion,  Friday,  was  again  a  "preparation"  Friday.  This  shows, 
that  the  "preparation"  was  understood  to  be  simply  a  Friday  or  6th 
day  of  the  week,  before  any  weekly  Sabbath. 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST 


Sabbath  came  any  day  from  Nisan  14  to  20  inclusive,  so  the  first-fruit 
offering  came  any  day  from  Nisan  15  to  21  inclusive,  the  days  when 
the  great  "convocation  "were  together  (ver.  7,  8).  Many  wrongly 
suppose  the  meaning  to  be  "  the  morrow  after  the  festival-rest  day," 
or  i5th  of  Nisan,  so  as  to  bring  the  first-fruit  offering  always  on  the 
i6th  of  Nisan,  as  it  was  when  our  Lord  rose  from  the  dead.*  But  the 
wrongfulness  of  this  view  is  easily  seen,  as  follows: 

The  strict  order  (in  ver.  14)  was,  "ye  shall  eat  neither  bread,  nor 
parched  corn,  nor  green  ears — until  the  self-same  day  that  ye  have 
brought  an  offering  unto  your  God."  But  the  very  first  offering  and 
eating  of  first-fruits  that  ever  occurred,  upon  the  entering  into  Canaan, 
we  are  told  in  Josh,  v:  10,  11,  was  "on  the  morrow  after  the  pass- 
over,"  which  had  been  kept  "on  the  14th  day  of  the  month  at  even." 
And  this  "morrow  after  the  passover,"  Num.  xxxiii:  3,  exactly  defines 
as  "the  15th  day  of  the  fii'st  month."     (See  D,  §  12.) 

§  59.  These  passages  prove  two  things:  (i.)  That  the  term 
"passover"  was  applied  only  to  "  the  14th  day  at  even,"  and  the  day- 
time of  the  15th  was  called  "the  morrow  after  the  passover,  "  so  that 
in  John  xviii:  28,  the  15th  Nisan  could  not  have  arrived.  (2.)  That, 
as  that  first  occurrence  of  the  first-fruit  offering  was  of  course  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  law  just  established  for  it,  its  being  on  the  15th 
Nisan  is  a  complete  overthrow,  from  the  start,  of  the  uniform  i6th  day 
theory;  while  showing  that  "  the  Sabbath"  referred  to  in  the  law  was 
a  weekly  Sabbath  (that  year  on  the  14th), f  not  a  feast  Sabbath  (taken 
as  the  15th  Nisan). 

§  60.  It  is  true  that  in  the  latest  days  of  the  temple,  a  Rabbinical 
reckoning  came  into  use,  for  some  reason,  putting  the  first-fruit  offer- 
ing as  regularly  on  the  i6th  Nisan.  The  first  mention  we  have  of  this 
is  by  Philo,  the  Jew,  in  A.  D.  40  to  50,  and  Josephus  also  gives  it  in  A. 
D.  go  (Antiq.  3,  x:  4),  Dr.  Lightfoot,  the  learned  Hebraist  (followed 
by  most  commentators  since)  takes  this  late  Rabbinical  reckoning  as 
if  the  true  meaning  of  the  Levitical  law.  But  we  have  here  proved 
the  contrary.  (See  it  also  pi'oved  in  the  Bib.  Sacra.,  April,  1894,  p., 
339;  also  July,  1880,  p.  426.) 

Even  the  late  Jews,  in  setting  the  first-fruit  offering  as   "  the  i6th 

*  "The  morrow  after  the  seventh  Sabbath"  (ver.  16)  can  mean 
nothing  but  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  always  Pentecost.  The  i6th 
of  the  ist  month,  plus  49,  to  the  6th  of  the  3d  month,  could  not  be  the 
constant  reckoning.  "  If  this  were  the  true  meaning,  why  was  not  the 
date  given  by  the  day  of  the  month,  as  in  the  case  of  all  the  other 
annual  feasts  mentioned  in  this  chapter,  rather  than  by  such  a  mis- 
leading expression  ?"     (Bib.  Sacra.,  April,  1894,  p.  340.) 

f  The  slaying  of  the  paschal  lambs  was  not  regarded  as  a  breach 
of  the  Sabbath,  even  as  the  "  daily  sacrifice  was  slain  every  Sabbath." 
(Ex.  xxix:  38-42.) 


48  NEW   TEST.    PEEIOD    G 

of  Nisan,"  didnot  call  the  15th  Nisan  a  "Sabbath."  Josephus  him- 
self says  (Antiq.  13,  vi:  i):  "That  festival  which  we  call  Pentecost 
did  then  (that  year)  fall  out  to  be  next  day  after  the  Sabbath  {ineta  to 
sabbaton);  nor  is  it  lawful  for  us  to  journey,  either  on  the  Sabbath 
day  or  a  festival  day."  Hence  it  is  made  plain  that  when  a  weekly 
Sabbath  came  next  to  a  festival  day,  they  were  not  both  called  Sab- 
bath.* 

§  61.  (2)  To  speak  of  the  15th  Nisan  as  itself  a  Sabbath  is  not 
Scripture  usage.  When  it  fell  upon  a  weekly  Sabbath,  that  was  what 
made  it  (as  in  the  year  of  Crucifixion)  specially  "  a  high  day."  (John 
xix:  31.)  "The  Jews  therefore,  because  it  was  the  preparation,  that 
the  bodies  should  not  remain  upon  the  cross  on  the  Sabbath,  for  the 
day  of  THAT  Sabbath  was  high  (or  great),  besought  Pilate,"  etc. 
Here  Sabbath  is  twice  over  emphasized  as  '"''  the  Sabbath;"  ^''  that  Sab- 
bath;" and  the  conviction  can  not  be  avoided  that  it  is  the  special 
weekly  Sabbath  of  complete  rest  that  is  referred  to.  Thus  only  was 
it  possible  to  speak  of  resting  on  that  day  following  the  crucifixion  as 
THE  VERY  sabbath  Spent  in  waiting  for  ^''  the  first-day  of  the  week" 
when  the  Sabbath  was  past.  Thus  exactly  is  the  matter  presented  in 
Mark  xv:  42,  to  xvi:  2,  and  Luke  xxiii:  54,  to  xxiv:  i;  and  it  is  impossible 
to  make  that  account  tally  with  more  than  one  intervening  "  Sabbath," 
or  with  any  Sabbath  but  that  immediately  following  the  crucifixion. 

No  sane  man  like  Mark  could  mean  by  "  Sabbath  "  in  xvi:  i,  a  dif- 
ferent day  from  the  Sabbath  just  named  in  xv:  42;  and  the  Sabbath 
that  "  drew  on,"  during  which  they  "rested,"  was  not  merely  a  Sab- 
bath, or  smiple  Sabbattic  time,  but  was  the  "  Sabbath-day,"  that  is,  the 
special  day  of  that  name.  This  record  in  Mark  and  Luke, of  one  single 
continuous  Sabbath  between  "the  preparation "  day  and' the  "first 
day  of  the  week,"  is  proof  positive  that  the  crucifixion  was  on  Friday, 
and  by  no  means  on  Thursday,  much  less  on  Wednesday,  as  claimed 
by  some. 

Difficulties  Disposed  Of. 

§  62.  (i)  It  was  only  about  "the  gth  hour"  (Matt,  xxvii:  46)  or  3  p. 

m.  when  Jesus  died — that  is,    "when  the  even  was  come  "  (ver.  57)  or 

last  quarter  of  the  day,  in  which  Joseph  intervened;  and  when  the 

*  See  this,  our  view,  proved  by  Prof.  Murphy  in  the  Bib.  Sacra, 
Jan.,  1872,  p.  77.  If  the  Pentecost  mentioned  by  Josephus  was  in  the 
year  after  Hyrcanus'  accession,  as  Josephus  seems  to  make  it,  i.  <?., 
m  B.  C.  134,  then  the  i6th  Nisan  that  year  was  Sunday,  April  10,  by 
the  Greek  Cycle  of  Calippus  (see  here  ^  81,  83).  But  if  that  Pentecost 
was  in  the  year  before  Antiochus'  death,  as  Rollins  puts  it  (Vol.  vii: 
p.  248),  /.  e.,  in  B.  C.  131,  then  the  i6th  Nisan  that  year  was  Sunday, 
April  6,  by  one  day  earlier  observation  of  the  moon.  But  in  either 
case,  this  occurrence  of  "first-fruits"  on  the  i6th  Nisan  (as  in  the  year 
of  Christ's  death)  does  not  prove  that  it  was  on  that  same  i6th  Nisan 
every  year,  even  in  those  last  Rabbinical  years,  much  less  that  it  was 
so  in  the  original  law  and  custom  of  Moses. 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  49 

burial  was  finished,  it  was  still  "the  preparation,  and  the  Sabbath 
drew  on  "  simply  (Luke  xxiii:  54),  as  sunset  had  not  yet  arrived,  "  for 
the  sepulcher  was  nigh  at  hand,"  John  xix:  42).  So  that  the  women  had 
time  to  run  into  the  city  before  sunset,  and  they  "bought  sweet 
spices"  (Mark  xvi:  i)  ;  and  thus  beginning  to  prepare  them,  they 
"rested  the  Sabbath  day  according  to  the  commandment,"  (Luke 
xxiii:  56),  evidently  the  fourth  commmidment.  At  sunset  of  Saturday 
they  doubtless  renewed  their  preparations,  and  very  early  in  the 
morning  they  came  unto  the  sepulcher  bringing  the  spices  which  they 
had  prepared,"  (xxiv:  i).  Spices  might  be  bought  after  the  Sabbath 
or  before.  So  that  no  extra  day  need  be  interposed  for  their  prepa- 
i-ations  as  some  allege. 

^  63.  (2)  The  only  other  objection  offered  against  Friday  as  the 
crucifixion  date,  is,  that  this  does  not  furnish  an  interval  of  "three 
days  and  three  nights  "  before  the  resurrection.  But  the  usual  ex- 
pression is  "  on  the  third  day,"  and  thirteen  times  over  this  expression 
is  used.  Matt,  xvi:  21,  and  xvii:  23,  and  xx:  ig,  and  xxvii:  64;  Mark  ix: 
31,  and  x:  34;  Luke  ix:  22,  and  xviii:  33,  and  xxiv:  7,  21,  46;  Acts  x:40> 

I  Cor.  XV :  4).  It  is  certain  that  this  was  the  Jewish  mode  of  counting 
(as  from  Friday  to  Sunday),  z.  e.  inclusively,  beginning  with  the  day 
or  object  started  from.  So  Luke  xiii:  32;  Acts  xxvii:  18,  19;  Ex.  xix:  10, 
11;  Lev.  vii:  16,  17;  and  xix:  6;  Johnxx:  26-30;  and  so  I  Sam.  iv:  7,  marg. 
("Woe  unto  us  !  for  there  hath  not  been  such  a  thing  yesterday  ?ior 
the  day  before'')  literally  ("nor  the  third  day").     Like  II  Sam.  iii:  17; 

II  Ki.  xiii:  5;  II  Chron.  xi:  2;  Ex.  iv:  10;  Deut.  xix:  4,  6;  Josh,  iii:  4. 
So  also  Lev.  xxv:  8-10,  etc.     See  particularly  II  Chron.  x:  5-12.  * 

Jesus  said  (John  ii:  19),  "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I 
will  raise  it  up:  "  that  is,  "  within  three  days,"  as  his  revilers  reported 
it  (Mark  xiv:  58,  and  xv:  29;  Mat.  xxvii:  40).  The  Jewish  rulers 
expressed  it  as  "  after  three  days  "  (Mat.  xxvii:  63);  but  they  immedi- 

*  "The  expression  meta  treis  hemeras  always  means  thire  days  after 
[/.  e..  the  third  day],  and  not  as  usually  rendered.  So  Josephus  in 
his  Jewish  War  (i,  xiii:  i)  says  '  two  years  after,'  but  in  his  Antiq.  (14, 
xiii:  3)  he  gives  it  as  'the  second  year.'  This  is  according  to  classi- 
cal usage.  Theophrastus  says  of  the  Egyptian  thorn,  'When  it  is  cut 
down,  ;;/(^/cr /r/Ztf;/ i?/(-;j  it  sprouts  again, 'which  Pliny  (N.  H.,  xiii:  9)  rend- 
ers, ^ccrsa  anno  teitio  resurgit.''  Demosthenes  uses  meth'  hemeras  duo 
in  the  sense  of  'two  days  after.'  Cicero  adopts  it.  Speaking  to 
Anthony  of  the  Ides  of  March,  on  which  Caesar  was  assassinated,  he 
says:  '  I  neither  saw  you  that  day,  nor  the  day  after,  hnipost  diem  ter- 
tium  (the  third  day  after)  I  came  into  the  Temple  of  Tellus.'  (Philip- 
pic, ii:  35.)  Some  learned  commentators,  such  as  Beza,  Grotius, 
Campbell,  Newcome,  render  such  phrases,  'within  three  days,'  etc., 
which  certainly  conveys  the  meaning,  i)ut  is  not  the  literal  translation 
of  the  preposition  )>ieta,  after."     (Hales,  Vol.  I,  p.  21.) 

For  further  proofs,  see  Home's  Introd.,  Vol.  II,  P.  77. 


50  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

ately  explained  this  as  meaning  only  "the  third  day"  (ver,  64) 
"That  deceiver  said  while  he  was  yet  alive,  after  three  days  I  will  rise 
again;  command,  therefore,  that  the  sepulcher  be  made  snveii7!ti/  the 
third  day.''  (So  Gen.  xlii:  17,  18.)  Jesus  himself  once  said  (Mark 
viii:3i),  he  would  "  after  three  days  rise  again."  But  we  have  just  seen 
that  with  the  Jews  "  after  three  days  "  or  "  three  days  after"  meant  the 
same  as  "the  third  day  after."  This  further  appears  from  I  Kings  xii: 
5,12;  II  Chron.  x:5,i2:  "Come  again  nnio  me  after  three  days,''  said 
the  king:  '''so  they  came  on  the  third  day  as  the  king  bade."  Can  any 
thing   be  more  certain  than  this  determination  of  the  case  before  us  ? 

But  see  also  Luke  ii:3i,  with  Lev.  xii:3,  where  "eight  days  were  ac- 
complished '"  when  it  was  only  "  the  eighth  day."  (Compare  Gen.  xvii: 
12.)  See  also  John  xx:26,  where  one  week  or  "the  eighth  day  after," 
is  expressed  as  "after  eight  days."  And  see  Lev.  xxiii:i6,  where  "fifty 
days"  means  "the  fiftieth  day"  or  Pentecost;  while  "  the  fiftieth  year" 
i(xxv:io,  11)  has  but  forty-eight  full  years  between  its  successive  occur- 
rences,— just  as  in  the  case  before  us,  "the  third  day  "  has  but  one  full 
day  between  its  extreme  days. 

I  64.  In  Matt.  xii:40,  Christ  says:  "  For  as  Jonah  was  three  days 
and  three  nights  in  the  belly  of  the  sea-monster,  so  shall  the  Son  of 
Man  be  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth."  This 
IS  the  one  great  stumbling  block  of  those,  who  (in  view  of  it)  try  to  be 
rid  of  Friday  as  the  crucifixion  date.  There  were  parts  of  "three  days  " 
after  the  crucifixion,  as  we  have  seen;  but  where  are  the  "three 
nights  ?"  it  is  asked.  Answer:  "  Three  days  and  three  nights"  was 
only  a  colloquial  phrase  equivalent  to  three  diurnal  periods,  and 
the  word  nights  contained  in  it  had  no  special  significance.  So  in  Es- 
ther iv:  16,  and  v:  i.  "  Fast  ye  for  me,  and  neither  eat  nor  drink  three 
days  night  or  day,  I  also  and  my  maidens  will  fast  likewise."  And  "  on 
the  thitd day  she  -pvit  on  \iev  voyaX  apparel,"  having  finished  the  fast. 

So  also  in  I  Sam.  xxx:i2,i3,  "  He  had  eaten  no  bread  nor  drunk  any 
water  three  days  and  three  nights,"  yet  he  immediately  says,  "///<<' 
third  day  ago  I  fell  sick,"  and  was  left  thus  to  famish;  (so  the  Hebrew 
should  be  rendered,  as  Scott  observes).  Here  we  find  used  the  very 
expression  before  us,  "three  days  and  three  nights,"  applied  to  an  af- 
fair which  was  only  "on  the  third  day  "  inclusive,  as  the  Jews  counted. 
They  spoke  in  round  numbers,  of  the  third  day  as  counting  three  day- 
night  units. 

\  65.  But  further:  The  Council  of  Caesarea,  in  A.  D.  196,  with  its 
renowned  leader,  Bishop  Theophilus,  thus  decreed:  'Tassus  naingue 
Dominiis  ab  11  Kal.  ApL,  qua  node  a  Judaeis  tj'aditus  est  et  ab  S  Kal 
resunexit,  quomodo  ergo  hi  tres  dies  *  *  *  intra  terinamiin  i/idiicantitr,' 
etc.  "For  our  Lord  suffered  fi^om  the  nth  Kal,  of  ApL,  in  which 
night  he  was  betrayed,  and  rose   the   8th    Kal. ;  therefore  those    thi^ee 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  51 

days  (from  betrayal  to  i^esurrection)  must  be  included  within  the  limit', 
of  allowable  Easter  days.  We  here  see  that  the  ancient  fathers, 
(though  getting  the  month-date  wrong)  spoke  of  the  "three  days  "  of 
Christ's  passion  as  reaching  from  the  Thursday  "  night  on  which  he 
was  beti^ayed;"  they  seeming  to  understand  thus  the  "three  days  and 
three  nights"  during  which  he  was  "in  the  heart  of  the  earth,"  or  under 
the  dominion  of  death,  as  they  appear  to  have  interpreted  it.  Why  is 
not  this  a  plausible  explanation  of  Christ's  fuller  meaning  ?  Not  that 
he  was  to  be  entombed  just  so  long,  (the  tomb  was  not  even  under- 
gi^ound);  but  that  he  was  to  be  overwhelmed  under  the  world's  will  and 
the  sway  of  death  for  "three  days  and  three  nights"  from  Gethsem- 
ane  to  Resurrection — just  as  expressed  in  the  typical  swallowing  up  of 
Jonah. 

?  66.  But  at  any  rate,  this  citation  from  the  fathers  proves  that 
the  tradition  of  Friday  as  the  crucifixion  date,  instead  of  being  im- 
posed upon  us  by  the  later  Romanism  (as  some  allege),  was  the  well- 
established  view  of  those  earlier  times  (in  the  second  'Century) — since 
they  reckoned  but  tJirce  days  f 7-0 in  tlic  betrayal  to  the  trsirrrectioti, 
thus  fixing  the  crucifixion  on  Friday.  And  other  like  testimonies 
might  be  bi-ought  from  the  fathers.*  There  is  no  excuse  whatever  for 
disturbing  the  time  honored  fact,  so  fully  demonstrated  that  our  Lord 
died  on  Friday,  the  sixth  day  of  the  Jewish  week. 

The  surest  proof  of  all  is  the  astronoinicat  deiiioiistration.  It  is 
now  known  beyond  doubt  (and  generally  agreed),  that  the  year  of 
Christ's  death  was  A.  D.  30.  Astronomy  proves  to  us  that  the 
New  Moon  of  A.  D'.  30  was  March  22nd  at  7:30  p.  m.  Consequently, 
the  New  Moon  could  not  be  observed  and  reported  and  the  New  Year 
or  ist  Nisan  made  to  begin  before  the  sunset  of  March  24.  This 
makes  the  14th  Nisan  to  be  on  Friday,  April  7th.  And  this  lunar 
assignment  of  the  New  Year  must  hold,  whether  it  wei^e  made  by 
observation  of  the  moon,  or  by  a  lunar  cycle,  which  after  use  for  some 
time  would  necessarily  (by  aggregation  of  slight  deficiency  in  all  such 
cycles)   give  later  reckoning  than  the  moon  itself.     (See  ?  31.)     And 


*  Justin  Martyr  (A.  D.  140)  expressly  names  Friday  as  the  cruci- 
fixion day.  [Sehivartz.)  His  language  is:  "Sunday  is  the  day  on 
which  we  all  hold  our  common  assembly,  because  it  is  the  first  day,  on 
which  God,  having  wrought  a  change  in  the  darkness  and  matter, 
made  the  world;  and  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour  on  the  same  day  rose 
from  the  dead.  For  he  was  crucified  on  the  day  before  that  of  Saturn 
[Saturday];  and  on  the  daj'  after  that  of  Saturn,  which  is  the  day  of 
the  sun,  he  appeared  to  his  apostles."  {Ant.  AYr.  Lib.,  Vol.  J  I.  p.  6^, 
66.  See  Bib.  Sac,  Oct.  1880,  p.  66j.)  So  early  and  so  general  an 
establishment  of  Friday  and  Sunday  as  the  dates  (see  ^  56,  note)  must 
be  correct. 


52  «  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

thus  it  is,  that  the  Friday  reckoning  is  the  key  to  the  whole  New  Test- 
ament chronology. 

To  assign  the  crucifixion  as  Wednesday,  would  put  it  on  the  12th  of 
Nisan,. three  days  before  the  passover  festival!  To  ascribe  it  to  Thurs- 
day, is  nearly  as  bad.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  our  Lord 
was  crucified  on  Friday,  April  7th  (Julian),  and  rose  on  Sunday,  April 
9th  A.  D.  30. 


APPENDIX  B. 

(For  I  24.) 
The  Jewish  Months  were  Lunar. 

?  67.  Seyffarth  was  one  of  the  very  few  who  have  ventured  to 
deny  that  the  Jewish  months  were  lunar.  (J?ex.  Discov.,  p.  186.)  How 
little  account  we  can  make  of  his  view,  will  appear  from  the  fact,  that 
he  makes  the  same  denial  concerning  the  Greeks,  and  substitutes 
Julian  reckoning  in  the  Jewish  Calendar!  Following  in  the  same  line, 
Jacob  Schwartz,- the  learned  librarian  in  New  'I'ork  City,  comes  for- 
ward (A.  D.  1889),  denying  that  the  Jews  had  lunar  months;  and  sub- 
stituting therefor  a  novel  Calendar  of  his  own  device,  to  throw  the 
crucifixion  (conceded  to  be  in  A.  D.  30)  upon  the  old  Julian  Equinox, 
March  25!  In  disproof  of  these  theories,  see  the  full  evidence  of 
Lunar  reckoning  in  the  Encyc.  Biif.,  Art.  Clu-onology. 

The  use  of  30  day  months  at  the  flood,  and  in  prophecy,  is  no  dis- 
proof of  lunar  months  (alternating  29  and  30  days)  in  the  practical  sys- 
tem of  the  Jewish  code.  This  lunar  system  was  evidently  based  upon 
the  commanded  observance  of  "new-moon"  festivals,  so  obvious 
throughout  the  Jewish  scriptures.  Lev.  xxiii:  24;  I  Sam.  xx:  5,  18;  II 
Ki.  iv:  23;  I  Chron.  xxiii:  31;  II  Chron.  ii:  4,  and  xxxi:  3;  Ezra  iii:  5; 
Neh.  x:  33;  Psa.  Ixxxi:  3;  Isa.  i:  13,  14,  and  Ixvi:  23;  Ezek.  xxxxv:  17, 
and  xxxxvi:  i,  3,  6;  Amosviii:  5;  Hos.  iii:  11;  Col.  ii:  16.  Hear  also  the 
ancient  writers: 

§68.  "Our  fathers  left  Egypt  on  the  15th  day  of  tJie  lunar 
month  "  tessara  kai  dekatce  kata  seleeneen,  en  Alio  (in  Aries)  ton  heelioii 
kathesiotos.  (Josephns,  An  tig.  2.  xv:  2,  and  j.  x:  j.)  The  months 
certainly  were  lunar  in  the  times  of  Josephus  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

"  The  passover,  a  public  feast,  was  to  be  celebrated  on  the  14th 
day,  the  moon's  circle  coming  to  be  full-shining,"  tessara  kai  dekatee 
heonera,  mellontos  ton  seleeniakoii  kuklou  genesthai  pleesiphaoiis. 
{Philo.  De  Vita  Alosis,  p.  Jjo.)  Could  anything  be  plainer  than  such 
testimony?  So  also,  Noumeenia gar orchctai pJwtizein  oistheeto  to  pJieszi 
ho  heelios  seleencen,  "  for  at  the  new  month  the  sun  starts  to  enlighten 
the  moon,"  etc.     {id.) 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  53 

So  the  Council  of  Caesarea,  A.  D.  196.  So  also  Anatolius,  A.  D.  287. 
(See  in  Bede,  and  Hales.)  "  The  law  commands  the  passover  to  be 
slam  on  the  14th  by  the  moon."  {Bede,  cap.  47,  p.  491.)  So  Proter- 
ius,  A.  D.  457,    "  He  rose  on  the  17th  of  the  moon."     {Afigne,  vol.  dy, 

P-507-) 

"The  Greek  Olympiads  commenced  at  the  full  moon."  {[eroiiie.) 
"  The  Greeks  and  other  ancients  proposed  to  have  the  months  lunar 
and  the  years  solar,  tliat  the  sacrifices  might  come  always  about  the 
same  time  of  year,  as  more  acceptable  to  the  gods."  {Geminus,  the 
great  asti'onomer,  about  240  B.  C,  in  Eiiseb.  II,  p.  747-)  "In  proof 
that  the  Greeks  counted  the  days  accurately  according  to  the  moon's 
age,  note  that  the  solar  eclipses  always  happened  on  the  30th  day  of 
their  month,  and  the  lunar  at  its  middle."  {Hales  I,  p.  24.)  As  the 
Greeks  then  had  lunar  months,  why  not  also  the  Jews? 

To  make  plain  the  certainty  that  the  Jewish  months  were  lunar,  we 
here  bi"ing  forward  several  express  cases,  all  but  the  first  cited  by 
Schwartz  himself. 

(i)  April  7,  A.  D.  30,  at  the  full  moon,  was  certainly  the  crucifixion 
passover,  as  assigned  at  an  early  date,  being  called  "  Pharmonti  25  " 
of  the  rotary  Egyptian  year.     See  here,   \  3. 

§69.     (2)   "In  A.  D.  26,  there  was  an  inscription  at  Berenike  in 
Egypt,  in  which  the  last  day  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  is  said  to 
have  occurred  on  Paophi  25.     The  fixed  Alexandrian  Paophi  begins 
Sep.   28   [the  fixed  Thoth  i  being  Aug.   29] ;  so  that  the  25th  is  Oct.  ' 
22,  hence  i  Tisri  was  Oct.  i."     {J.  Schiiiart::,  Letter,  Jan.  11,  iSgo.) 

As  the  7th  month  Tisri  i  began  at  sunset  of  Oct.  i,  the  ist  month 
Nisan  i  began  6  lunar  months  or  (29><  X6^)  177  days  before,  at  sunset 
of  April  7.  This  agrees  exactly  with  the  Greek  Lunar  Cycle  (as  ap- 
plied by  the  Jews, — see  here,  at  §  28  note);  thus,  A.  D.  26^Cy.  yr.  14 
(from  B.  C.  330  as  yr.  i),  epact  or  age  of  the  moon  23  on  (June  28  and) 
March  31;  giving  i  Nisan  as  beginning  (30 — 23==)  7  days  later  on-April 
7, — the  moon's  conjunction  itself  being  about  two  days  before  that. 

Tlie  only  question  that  can  be  I'aised  is,  whether  "  the  last  day  of 
the  feast"  on  the  inscription  meant  Tisri  21  or  22.  The  "  Paophi 
25  "  =  Oct.  22  was  Tisri  21  till  sunset,  after  that  Tisri  22.  In  any 
case,  Tisri  i  was  Oct.  i  at  sunset  (as  Schwartz  concedes),  till  the  sun- 
set of  Oct.   2. 

The  "last  day  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles"  was  really  Tisri  21; 
for  over  and  over  we  are  told  it  was  to  last  "  seven  days,"  viz.,  15-21 
inclusive.  (Lev.  xxiii:  6,  8,  34,  36,  39,  40,  41,  42.)  The  "8th  day" 
mentioned  in  ver.  39  (and  II  Chron.  vii:  8,  g,  10)  was  not  considered  a 
day  of  the  feast.  "The  feast  of  tabernacles,  strictly  so-called,  is  sup- 
posed to  have  continued  only  7  days,  during  which  all  the  Israelites 
dwelt  in  booths.     The  '  8th  day  '  is  thought  to  have  been  an  additional 


54  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

festival— of  thanksgiving — celebrated  in  their  own  houses."  {Scott s 
Com.)  This  extra  8th  day  (the  22nd)  Solomon  lengthened  (on  the  23d) 
into//////  days  extra  in  dedication  of  the  temple.  (11  Chron.  vii:  g, 
10.)  At  any  rate,  "  the  8th  day  "  as  Tisri  22  (5<?^rt«  in  the  year  A.  D. 
26  on  "  Paophi  25  "  or  Oct.  22,  in  agreement  with  the  inscription.  It 
may  even  have  begun  at  the  sunset  before,  if  observation  instead  of 
the  cycle  were  then  in  use.  In  either  case,  the  months  are  proved  to 
have  been  certainly  licnar. 

§70.  (3)  "In  A.  D.  70,  Josephus  says,  the  temple  was  burnt 
on  Lous  8  (=  Sat.  Aug.  5) — the  5th  Macedonian  month; — and  the  city 
was  captured  on  .Gorpieus  8,  the  6th  Macedonian  month.  The  tradi- 
tion of  the  Jews  and  the  express  testimony  of  Roman  historians  (Dio 
for  one)  make  them  both  Satia-days.''     {Schwartz'  Letter.) 

As  Josephus  calls  the  5th  Jewish  month  Ab  by  its  Macedonian  name 
Lous,  on  what  Roman  date  does  he  here  put  its  8th  day  ?  That  year 
A.  D.  70  was  (like  the  year  32)  year  i  of  the  Lunar  Cycle  (from  B.  C. 
330),  with  epact  o  on  March  31,  June  28,  and  August  26.  Therefore, 
the  6th  lunar  month  began  at  sunset  of  August  26,  and  the  5th  lunar 
month  began  at  sunset  of  July  27;  so  that,  the  8th  day  of  the  5th  month 
ended  at  sunset  on  August  4  of  that  year,  A.  D.  70;  which  was  Satur- 
day, as  the  tradition  requires  (not  Saturday,  August  5,  as  Schwartz 
has  it). 

L  For,  by  the  week-day  rule  (at  §  40  note), — A.  D.  70-^28  leaves  14, 
wh.  -^  7  leaves  o  -{-3  (in  the  previous  14)=  3  days  to  be  added  to  Sun. 
-=Wed.  Mar.  o,  A.  D.  70  + (Mar.  31 +30  +  31  +  30  +  31  +  Aug.  4=) 
157  days  H-  7  leaves  3d  +  Wed.  =  Saturday,  Aug.  4,  A.  D.  70. 

We  thus  see,  that  the  Jewish  reckoning  was  certainly  by  the  lunar 
man t lis;  and  that  the  Jewish  tradition  rightly  has  the  burning  of  the 
temple  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath  (Saturday,  Lous  or  Ab  8,  A.  D.  70). 
But  the  destruction  of  the  city  could  not  be  also  on  the  Sabbath,  if  the 
"  Goppieus  8  "  is  correct;  for  the  intervening  tv/iole  month  cannot  thus 
be  reduced  to  even  weeks. 

?  71.  (4)  "  Pompey  captured  the  city  in  the  3d  ecclesiastical 
month,  Sivan  23,  a  fast  day.  and  a  Saticrday,  as  Dio  testifies,  in  64  B. 
C."  {Schwartz'  Letter.)  He  adds,  "  In  a  lunar  year  the  23d  day  of 
Sivan  would  fall  on  June  21,  in  B.  C.  64."  That  is  right.  F01-,  this  B. 
C.  64  and  the  A.  D.  70  (just  considered)  are  exactly  133  years  apart,  or 
7  lunar  cycles;  so  that,  by  the  cycle,  i  Nisan  began  in  both  yeai^s  alike. 
That  is,  in  this  year  i  of  the  cycle,  with  epact  o  on  Mar.  31,  the  i 
Nisan  began  at  sunset  on  March  31.  Therefore,  i  Sivan,  59  days  later, 
began  May  29,  and  23  Sivan  ended  at  sunset  on  Saturday  June  21,  B. 
C.  64,  as  "the  fast  da}'." 

We  find  it  to  be  Saturday  by  the  rule  (at  \  40  note),  thus:  B.  C.  64 
—  I  =  63  -^  28  leaves  7,  which  -^  7  leaves  o,  to  which  we  add  i  (for  the 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  •  55 

I  four  in  the  7),  and  add  i  more  (for  the  rest  of  the  7),  making  2  days 
before  Sunday,  i.  e.  Friday,  Marcli  o,  B.  C.  64.  Then,  March  31 -|- 
April  30  +  May  31  +  June  21  ^  113  days  -r-  7  leaves  i  after  Friday,  Mar. 
o,  making  Saturday,  June  21,  B.  C.  64.  The  Jewish  months  are  thus 
proved  to  have  been  lunar. 

(5)  "Judas' defeat  of  Nicanor  on  Adar  13  (i  Mac.  vii:  43)  =  March 
12,  B.  C.  161;  which  was  a  Sunday,  as  plainly  appears  by  2  Mac,  xv:  i, 
37."  (Sc/iwarts'  Letter.)  It  was  at  least  soon  after  the  Saturday  Sab- 
bath, in  the  i52d  year  Seleucic  (see  1  Mac.  vii:  i)  /.  e.  in  B.  C.  160  (not 
161),  when  Adar  13  was  Feb.  24  by  the  Lunar  Cycle.  For,  that  was 
cycle  year  ig,  epact  18  on  March  31;  /.  e.,  i  Nisan  beginning  Mar.  13  = 
Adar  30,  so  that  Adar,  13  =  Feb.  24, — which  was  Sunday. 

We  know  it  was  Sunday  thus:  B.  C.  160 — 1  =  159-^28  leaves  ig, 
which  -^7  leaves  5  -[-  4  +  i  more,  making  10  or  3  days  before  Sunday,  i. 
e.,  Thursday,  Mar.  o,  B.  C.  160.  So  that  we  have  Sunday,  Feb.  24, 
B.  C.  160.     Thus  the  months  were  lunar. 

^72.  (6)  "The  capture  of  the  first  temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
was  on  Ab  8,  accoixling  to  the  Jewish  traditions:  and  they  claim  that 
this  was  a  Saturday.''  {Schiuartz'  Letter.)  That  is,  it  was  supposed 
to  be  the  day  after  the  coming,  2  Ki.  xxv:  8.  We  have  elsewhere 
proved  that  it  was  in  the  year  B.  C.  587  (not  588  or  586  as  often  given). 
Josephus  says,  that  Titus'  burning  of  the  temple  was  "the  same  month 
and  day"  as  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  viz.  "  Lous  (or  Ab)  8,"  when 
the  burning  began,  {Ward,  iv:  i,  2,  8)  though  the  burning  continued 
tilL  "  Lous  or  Ab  10,"  (?  5). 

B.  C.  587  is  616  years  before  A.  D.  30,  or  8  years  over  t^z  of  the  19 
year  cycles.  Those  8  years  carry  the  months  back  two  days;  (see 
epact  o  or  30  changed  to  28  after  8  years,  11  changed  to  g,  etc., — in  the 
list  of  epacts,  \  28  note.)  So  that,  i  Nisan  in  B.  C.  587  began  by 
cycle  March  22,  instead  of  the  March  24  (at  sunset)  in  A.  D.  30.  But 
if  the  cycle  when  Meton  put  it  forth  (in  B.  C.  432)  agreed  nearly  with 
the  moon,  it  would  in  B.  C.  587  be  nearly  a  day  before  the  new  moon. 
Therefore,  that  year,  instead  of  i  Nisan  begun  on  March  22,  the  new 
moon  itself  was  not  until  March  23;  and  (going  then  only  by  observa- 
tion) they  began  the  new  year,  i  Nisan,  two  days  after,,  at  sunset  of 
March  25.  This  made  the  8th  of  Ab  (the  5th  month)  begin  at  sunset 
of  Friday,  July  28,  and  Saturday,  July29,  B.  C.  587,  was  the  Ab  8,  on 
which  tradition  puts  the  destruction  of  the  temple. 

We  know  it  was  Saturday  thus:  B.  C.  587 — 1=586-^28  leaves  26, 
which  -^7  leaves  5-|-6-|-i  more,  making  12  or  5  days  before  Sunday,  i.  e., 
Tuesday  March  o,  B.  C.  587.  Then  March  3i-^-April  30+May  31 
-[-June  30+July  29=151-^7  leaves  4  days  after  Tuesday,  Mar.  o,  mak- 
ing Saturday,  July  29,  B.  C.  587.     Thus  the  months  were  lunar. 

Indeed,  B.  C.  587-fA.  D.  30=616  years,  which  contain  just  22  solar 


56  •     NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

cycles  of  28  years  each.  And  July  29 — March  25=126  days,  or  just 
even  weeks  after  March  25.  Therefore,  as  March  25,  A.  D.  30,  was 
Saturday,  so  the  July  29,  B.  C.  587,  was  Saturday  also  (ou  the  8th  day 
of  the  5th  lunar  month  Ab). 

And  the  tradition  cited  is  thus  found  to  be  well  grounded,  that  the 
temple  was  burned  this  time  also  upon  the  Jewish  Sabbath;  while  the^ 
year  date  B.  C.  587  is  thus  also  verified,  as  the  fundamental  or  start- 
ing date  for  the  whole  Old  Testament  Chronology. 

All  the  foregoing  dates,  therefore,  go  to  prove  demonstratively,  that 
the  Jews  employed  lunar  months  all  through  their  history.  At  the 
same  time  they  show,  that,  in  the  later  centuries  at  least,  they  had 
their  months  beginning  about  two  days  after  the  new  moon  conjunc- 
tion; in  accordance  with  the  lunar  cycle,  confirming  our  demonstra- 
tion of  the  crucifixion  date  as  on  the  14th  Nisan,  or  Friday,  April  7, 
A.  D.  30. 


APPENDIX  C. 

(For  §3j.) 
An'cient  Lunar  Cycles. 


I  73.  Although  Calippus  used  June  28  (or  its  equivalent)  as  his 
solstitial  standard  day  for  the  lunar  epacts,  as  we  have  seen,  yet 
Meton  before  him  had  more  correctly  assigned  June  27  (or  its 
equivalent)  as  his  standard  summer  solstice. 

"  Meton  observed  the  summer  solstice  to  be,  in  this  year  B.  C.  432, 
on  the  2ist  day  of  the  Eg)'ptian  month  Phamenoth,  which  reduced  to 
the  Julian  year  falls  on  the  27th  of  June.  And  therefore  the  Greeks 
having  received  the  cycle  from  him,  did,  from  this  time  forward,  cele- 
brate their  Olympiads  on  the  first  full  moon  after  the  27th  day  of  our 
June;  beginning  their  year  from  the  new  moon  preceding."  {Pridemix, 
Connex,  Vol.  I.  p.  40Q.) 

This  was  a  correct  placing  of  the  solstice;  since,  bj'  our  exact 
reckoning,  the  solstice  in  B.  C.  433  was  on  June  27  at  4  a.  m.  at  Green- 
wich,- or  5|^  A.  M.  in  Greece, — and  in  B.  C.  432  it  was  on  June  27  at 
10  A.  M.  at  Greenwich,  or  11^  a.  m.  in  Greece.  Thenceforward,  it  was 
found  necessary  to  add  a  day  from  time  to  time  to  the  Egyptian  date 
of  the  solstice,  making  the  Phamenoth  21  to  become  Phamenoth  22, 
and  then  23,  etc.,  to  keep  their  solstice  day  right  in  that  rotary  year  of 
Egypt.  But  this  was  done  irregularlj^  the  exact  length  of  a  solar  or 
equinoctial  year  not  being  then  understood;  so  that  a  day  was  added 
sometimes  in  3  yeai's,  sometimes  in  5  years,  two  days  being  sometimes 
added  when  there  was  too  long  delay. 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  57 

After  loo  years,  Calippus  found  that  25  clays  in  all  had  heen 
inserted,  carrying  the  solstice  to  Pharmonti  16;  therefore  he  judged 
that  about  i  day  in  each  4  years  was  the  right  change  required.  And  he 
deemed  it  expedient  to  establish  a  rule  of  change  with  his  improved 
cycle,  viz.,  that  at  eacJi  return  of  the  Olympic  games  (in  B.  C.  332,  328, 
324,  etc.)  the  solstice  should  be  considered  as' having  moved  i  day  later 
in  the  Egyptian  year.  He  thus  got  in  an  extra  day-change  at  B.  C. 
432,  making  26  days  added  since  Meton  (instead  of  the  correct  25),  and 
carrying  the  solstice  from  Phanienoth  21  to  Pharmonti  17  (instead  of 
the  right  16);  which  Pharmonti  17  in  B.  C.  330  (his  cycle  year  i)  was 
June  28  Julian,  instead  of  Meton's  more  correct  solstice  June  27. 

?  74.  Thus  the  standard  solstitial  date  of  the  Greeks  became  from 
that  time  equivalent  to  June  28  Julian,  although  June  27  had  been 
started  by  Meton  100  years  before,  as  the  more  correct  solstice  date. 
Calippus  found  the  mean  new  moon  of  that  B.  C.  330  to  be  on  that 
very  Pharmonti  17  (  =  June  28  Julian)  at  3I4'  p.  m.  in  Greece.  And 
therefore, 'he  called  that  B.  C.  330  year  i  of  his  76-year  cycle  (4  of  the 
19's),  with  epact  o,  or  no  age  of  the  month  on  June  28.  (See  here, 
?  30.) 

Meton,  having  epact  o  on  June  27  (as  really  year  i  of  his  19-year 
cycle),  while  the  new  moon — by  our  exact  mean  reckoning — was  June 
26  at  2  p.  M.  at  Greenwich,  or  3>^  p.  m.  in  Greece, — we  see  that  he  had 
the  months,  from  the  very  start,  beginning  a  day  after  the  mean  new 
moon,  as  if  assigned  by  observation.  The  next  year,  B.  C.  432,  was 
really  year  2  of  his  cycle,  with  epact  11,  showing  the  month  11  days 
old  on  June  27;  so  that,  another  new  month  that  year  would  begin  after 
(30 — 11=)  19  days  from  June  27,  viz.,  on  July  16. 

But  most  writers  call  this  year,  B.  C.  432,  the  beginning  of  Meton's 
cycle,  as  if  he  had  the  epacts  11,  22,  3,  &c.,  instead  of  the  o,  11,  22, 
&c.,  of  Calippus.  And  they  put  its  beginning  at  the  new  month  July 
16,  B.  C.  432,  instead  of  the  new  month  June  27,  B.  C.  433.*  But  this 
throws  the  Olympic  full  moon  too  long  after  the  Solstice,  or  has  an 
intercalary  month  at  the  very  r  of  the  cycle,  which  is  not  at  all  likely. 
After  5  cycles  of  Meton,  or  95  years  from  B.  C.  433,  the  year  B.  C. 
338  was  a  proper  year  i  of  Meton's  cycle.  But  Calippus  interposed  an 
8-year  cycle,  making  his  cycle  year  i  to  be  B.   C.  330.     That  inter- 

*The  Edinburgh  Encyc.  says:  "The  cycle  of  Meton  was  ado]:)ted 
July  16,  B.  C.  433  [432].'''  HehchePs  Astron.  tells  us:  "The  Metonic 
cycle  (astronomical  epact)  began  July  15,  B.  C.  432.  The  civil  epoch 
of  it  was  I  day  later  than  the  astronomical,  the  latter  being  the  epoch 
of  the  absolute  new  moon,  the  former  that  of  the  earliest  possible  visi- 
bility of  the  lunar  crescent  in  a  tropical  sky."  The  Chrouologv  of 
History  says:  "The  beginning  of  the  Metonic'cycle  was  Julv  15,  B.  C. 
432." 


58  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

posed  8-year  cycle  increased  the  epact  of  B.  C.  330  by  2  days  from  28 
to  30  or  o;  but  being  applied  to  June  28,  instead  of  the  previous  June 
27,  it  was  really  an  increase  of  only  i  day  in  the  age  of  the  month, 
into  nearer  agreement  with  the  actual  age  of  the  moon.  And  that  was 
probably  one  reason  why  the  Calippic  change  was  introduced.  For, 
in  that  year,  B.  C.  330,  the  mean  new  moon  was  on  June  28,  at  3^4^ 
p.  M.  in  Greece;  /.  ^.,  on  the  very  day  of  epact  o,  instead  of  a  whole 
day  before,  as  in  the  case  of  Meton. 

§  75.  Assuming  that,  at  or  after  the  time  of  Meton  and  Calippus, 
the  Jews  used  a  19-year  cycle,  they,  of  course,  would  apply  it  to  the 
equinox,  not  (as  did  the  Greeks)  to  the  solstice.  ConsideiTiig  Meton's 
solstice  as  correct  (equivalent  to  June  27),  and  regarding  the  equinoxes 
as  91  days  (or  one  quarter  of  the  year)  before  and  after  that  date 
(equivalent  to  March  28  and  Sep.  26),  in  applying  the  cycle  at  first  (for 
fixing  their  civil  year)  to  the  aiituiunal  equinox  as  Sep.  26,  the  Jews 
would  have  their  epacts  2  lai^ger  than  those  of  Calippus  (i  larger  in 
part  of  the  cycle),  because  the  gi  days  (from  June  27  to  Sep.  26)  were 
ij^  day  more  than  the  three  lunations  (89^^  days). 

This  was  adding  another  8-year  cj'cle  to  Calippus,  as  he  added  an 
8-year  cycle  to  Meton.  And  now,  calling  epact  11  (instead  of  o)  the 
epact  of  the  cycle  year  i,  the  Jews  had  their  year  i  (twice  8+1  or)  17 
years  later  than  that  of  Meton,  as  if  in  B.  C.  416  (instead  of  433).  So 
that  year  i  of  their  cycle  was  the  same  as  year  18  of"  Meton.  And  in 
this  shape  they  have  it  to  this  date.  For,  the  "Jewish  Lunar  Cycle," 
as  given  in  our  Almanacs  and  as  found  in  the  Calendars  of  the  Modern 
Jews,  has  year  i  as  A.  D.  1884,  /.  e.,  B.  C.  17,  and  A.  D.  3,  and  22, 
etc.,  with  its  year  9  at  A.  D.  30,  etc.  When  the  Jews  used  the  cycle 
to  assign  the  7>cr]ial  new  year,  they  had  simply  to  take  5  from  each 
autumnal  epact,  and  apply  the  remainder  to  their  vernal  equinox. 
March  28;  because  the  182  days  (or  two  91 's)  from  Sep.  26  back  to 
March  28  wei-e  5  days  more  than  the  6  intervening  lunations  (6  times 
29K  or)  177  days. 

Thus  the  epact  9  in  year  10  of  Calippus'  cycle  became  autumnal 
epact  II  in  year  i  of  the  Jewish  cycle,  or,  used  vernally  ( — 5)  epact  4 
as  the  age  of  the  month  on  March  28,  with  i  Nisan  consequently 
beginning  at  sunset  of  March  24  in  A.  D.  30.  And  so,  by  cycle  reckon- 
ing (as  well  as  by  observation),  whether  the  cycle  were  that  of  Calip- 
pus, applied  at  March  31,  or  a  modified  form  of  it,  as  the  Jewish  Lunar 
Cycle,  handed  down  to  our  times  with  (+2—5=)  3  less  epact  applied  to 
the  old  equinox,  March  28,  in  either  case,  the  Jews  had  i  Nisan 
beginning  about  2  days  after  the  new  moon;  /.  c,,  at  sunset  of  March 
24  in  A.  D.  30,  the  year  of  crucifixion.  (As  to  the  hmar  reckoning  of 
Julius  Caesar,  see  afterwards,  in  Appendix  D.) 

\  76.     The  Council  of  Nice  (in  A.  D.  325)  reduced  the  standard  day 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  50 

for  epacts  fi"oin  the  old  Greek,  June  28,  or  Mar.  31  (as  used  by  the 
Jews)  down  to~  March  zz,  as  the  day  after  the  true  equinox  then 
(March  21),  and  as  the  earhest  date  allowable  in  the  paschal  term. 
This  loss  of  nine  days  (from  Mar.  31  to  22)  in  applying  the  epacts 
required  a  corresponding  reduction  of  the  epacts  by  g.  But  the  cycle 
error  of  two  days  (in  the  more  than  600  years  since  Calippus)  being 
allowed  for,  the  reduction  would  be  seven  days.  They  in  fact  reduced 
the  epacts  but  six  days,  and  so  over-corrected  the  cycle,  carrying  their 
new  months  one  day  before  the  new-moons.  This  they  did,  perhaps, 
in  order  to  anticipate  further  eiTor  of  the  cycle — which  they  foresaw 
would  accrue.  But,  in  order  to  have  year  i  of  the  cycle  still  at  epact  o, 
this  reduction  of  six  days  required  them  to  move  along  the  cycle  six 
years;  so  that,  its  year  i  came  where  the  year  7  of  Calippus  came, 
viz.,  at  B.  C.  I  instead  of  B.  C.  7  (and  before  in  B.  C.  330).  Thus  the 
year  i,  or  "Golden  Number"  i,  of  the  Nicene  cycle  was  A.  D.  323, 
when  the  mean  new  moon  was  March  23.* 

And  thus  have  we  the  Nicene  Lunar  Cycle  (still  in  use  as  the 
Golden  Number,  with  year  i  at  B.  C.  i),  three  years  earlier  and  greater 
than  the  Jewish  Lunar  Cycle  (with  year  i  at  A.  D,  3).  And  it  had,  at 
the  start,  its  year  i  or  A.  D.  323,  with  epact  o  on  March  22,  one  day 
before  the  mean  new  moon  of  March  2^. 

I  77.  In  the  lapse  of  time,  the  equinox  so  went  down  in  the  Julian 
year,  that  in  the  17th  century  the  standard  March  22  (or  day  after  the 
equinox)  had  i^eached  March  12;  and  pope  Gregory  dropped  ten  days, 
throwing  it  back  to  be  March  22  again:  But  meanwhile,  the  mean 
new-moon  had  moved  along  in  the  Julian  year  (at  the  rate  of  one  day 
in  310  years)  to  be  nearly  five  days  earlier  at  cycle-year  i,  viz.,  on 
March  18,  Julian,  instead  of  the  March  23 — /.  e.,  on  March  28  of  the 
new  Gregorian  dating.  So  that,  if  March  22  were  still  used  for  apply- 
ing the  epacts,  they  would  now  make  the  months  begin  (28 — 22=)  six 
days  too  soon.  Hence  it  was  concluded,  to  apply  the  epacts  no  longer 
to  Mai'ch  22,  but  to  March  30,  or  (what  was  the  same  thing)  to  January 
I,  the  modern  New  Year,  just  three  lunations  before. 

§  78.  But  as  the  mean  new  moon  of  Cycle-year  i  was  at  March  2S 
(as  just  seen),  this  putting  of  its  epact  o  as  at  March  30  (or  January  i) 
was  making  the  months  begin  with  March  31,  or  three  days  after  the 
mean  new   moon.      However,   the   Gregorian   loss  of  another  day  at 


*  For,  A.  D.  1855—323=1532  years  X  365^=559,563  days  and  18,948 
lunations  X  2gd.5305885=559545d.  591  (or  1411+13/4  h  acceleration=i5^4^ 
hours  trom  the  559,563  days=i7d  8,'4^h-|-the  mean  new  moon  in  A.  D. 
1855,  viz.,  March  6,  Julian,  at  8>2  a.  m.  at  Romc=the  mean  new-moon 
in  A.  D.  323,  on  March  23,  at  4^4  p.  m.  at  Rome  (G.  N.  i,  cjiact  o,  on 
March  22). 


-60  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

A.  D.  i7oo,t  carried  the  new  moon  of  March  28  (in  Cj'cle-year  i)  up  to 
be  March  29,  making  the  last  century  to  have  the  cycle  months  begin- 
ning but  two  daj^s  after  the  mean  new-moon.  And  the  loss  of  another 
day  at  A.  D.  1800,  carried  the  new  moon  (in  cycle-year  i)  up  to  be 
March  30,  making  the  present  century  have  the  cycle  months  begin- 
ning but  one  day  after  the  mean  new  moon.  X  So  that  when,  directly, 
A.  D.  igoo  shall  have  lost  to  us  still  another  day,  the  next  century 
will  have  the  cycle  months  beginning  just  about  with  the  mean  new- 
moon. 

In  other  words,  the  Gregorian  loss  of  12  days  now  reached  offset 
by  5  full  days  correction  of  the  lunar  cycle  (in  1873 — 325  =  1550  yrs  -f- 
310),  has  left  7  days  change  of  epact  needed,  from  the  new  moon  of 
Mar.  23,  A.  D.  323,  to  the  new  moon  of  Mar.  30,  now  (in  cycle  yr.  i); 
so  that  our  present  putting  of  epact  o  (in  cycle  year  i)  on  Mar.  30  or 
Jan.  I,  gives  the  lunar  months  as  beginning  but  a  single  day  after  the 
mean  new  moon. 

§  79.     Comparative  View  of  Ancient  Cycles  and  Epacts. 

I                                            I                                 *  I  A.  D."^ 

Year  B.  C. 15  14  13  12  11  10    9    87654321I  1234 

r  Metonic,  June  27 *o  11  22     3  14  25     6  17  28     9  20     i   12  23     4  15  26     7  18 

ui      Callippic,  June  28 i   12  23     4  15  26     7  18  *o  11  22     3  14  25     6  17  28     9  20 

o  J  Jewish,  Sep.  26 3  14  25     6  17  28    9  20     i  12  23     4  15  26     7  18  o  *ii  22 

g_'!  Jewish,   Mar.  28 28     g  20     i  12  23     4  15  26     7  i8     o  11  22     3  14  25  *6  17 

^  j  Nicene  -   ign'  i^" ^^     6  17  28     9  20     i  12  23     4  15  26    7  18  *o  11  22     3  14 

Golden  Number 6     7     8     9  10  i:  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  *i  2     3     4     5 

*Beginning  of  the  cycles — Metonic,  Callipic,  Nicene,  Jewish. 


APPENDIX  D. 

(For  §48.) 

Was  the  Crucifixion  on  the  14TH  or  the  15TH  Nisan  ? 

§  80.  There  has  always  been  going  on  an  earnest  and  elaborate 
debate,  as  to  the  question,  on  which  of  the  Jewish  days  Christ  was 
crucified,  on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  the  day  of  slaughtering  the  paschal 
lambs,  or  on  the  15th  of  Nisan,  the  first  festival  day  of  the  passover. 
Centuries  ago  this  question  was  agitated,  and  every  year  or  two  in  this 

f  As  England  then  dropped  the  eleven  days  just=a  year's  change  of 
the  lunar  epacts,  "the  Gregorian  epact  for  any  year  was  the  same 
with  the  Julian  epact  for  the  year  preceding  it."    {Chambers'  Cyc). 

X  Thus,  in  A.  D.  1855,  the  Almanacs  give  the  Golden  Number  (or 
Nicene  cycle-year)  as  13,  with  epact  12,  /.  e.,  with  the  lunar  month  i2d 
old  on  January  i,  making  it  3od  old  (or  epact  o)  of  the  next  lunar 
month  on  (30 — 12=)  i8d  after,  or  January  19;  whereas,  that  mean  new 
moon  was  January  18,  at  6  a.  m.,  as  we  saw. 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  Gl 

century  there  appears  a  labored  discussion  and  alleged  determination 
of  the  matter  one  way  or  the  other.  This  debate  excites  the  more  in- 
terest because  the  gospel  of  John  seems  to  be  all  written  in  favor  of  the 
14th  day,  and  the  other  three  gospels  are  thought  to  support  the  15th 
day  as  the  date  of  crucifixion. 

Sceptical  critics  of  Scripture  love  to  harp  upon  these  appearances 
of  collision  between  the  gospels,  and  to  array  the  one  against  the 
others  in  alleged  proof  of  the  unreliability  of  the  history.  It  is  worth 
our  while,  therefore,  to  inquire  if  there  is  any  plain  and  plausible  ex- 
planation of  the  seeming  discrepancy.  A  new  elaboration  of  the  sub- 
ject, just  appearing  (from  Prof.  Whitford,  Outlook,  October,  1892), 
emboldens  us  to  present  the  following  view,  which  we  have  long  enter- 
tained: 

§  Si.  The  Jewish  months  were  lunar,  and  they  felt  obliged  by  the 
Mosaic  law  carefully  to  conform  their  new  year  and  their  months  to  the 
successive  returns  of  the  new  moon,  so  that  the  sacred  festivals  should 
come  at  the  veiy  times  divinely  appointed,  and  the  passover  feast  and 
the  feast  of  tabernacles  should  be  at  the  full  moon  or  15th  day  of  their 
respective  months.  Now,  the  15th  Nisan  would  not  thus  come  cor- 
rectly at  the  full  moon,  unless  that  first  month  should  be  started  prop- 
erly soon  after  the  new  moon  of  the  new  year  appeared. 

In  order  thus  to  start  the  year  right,  in  all  their  earlier  history,  the 
rulers  had  an  artless  method  of  announcing  annually  the  arrival  of  the 
new  year's  new  moon,  as  seen  by  careful  observation  within  a  day  or 
two  after  the  change.  Whoever  first  caught  sight  of  the  new  moon 
was  rewarded  for  reporting  it  to  the  authorities,  and  the  order  was  at 
once  issued  by  the  Sanhedrim  fixing  and  starting  i  Nisan  on  its  way, 
while  bonfires  lighted  on  the  hills  spread  at  once  the  news  of  the  new 
year  begun.  (See  here  §  25.)  This  was  a  rude  method  of  early  times, 
and  would,  of  course,  give  way  to  simpler  and  surer  ways  of  in- 
augurating the  year,  as  knowledge  of  the  movements  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  advanced. 

In  B.  C.  432  Meton  gave  to  the  Greeks  the  wonderful  Lunar  Cycle 
of  19  years,  each  year  having  set  to  it  an  Epacf,  or  moon's  age,  on  a 
fixed  stai'ting  or  standard  date  (the  day  of  the  summer  solstice).  So 
that  the  commencement  of  each  lunar  year  was  known  by  the  simple 
Epact  number  of  that  year,  and  after  19  years  the  same  succession  re- 
turns over  again,  with  only  a  slight  departure  from  perfect  accuracy, 
there  being  only  a  deviation  from  the  exact  new  moon  of  one  day  in  310 
years. 

This  cycle  of  the  Greeks  was  still  further  perfected  by  Calijiinis  in 
B.  C.  330,  which  was  made  year  i  of  a  76-year  period  or  four-fold  re- 
turn of  the  19-year  cycle.  In  that  year  B.  C.  330  (cycle  year  i)  the 
mean  new  moon  was  June  28  at  },%  p.  m.,  and  so  that  day,  June  28, 


62  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

then  taken  as  the  day  of  the  summer  solstice  (see  Appendix  C,  J?  74)  was 
a  suitable  starting  point  for  the  Epact  or  age  of  the  moon  each  year. 
Thus  B.  C.  330,  as  cycle  3'ear  i,  had  Epact  o,  i.  e.,  no  age  of  the  moon 
on  June  28;  B.  C.  329  as  cycle  year  2  had  Epact  11,  i.  e.,  moon  11  days 
old  on  June  28;  next  year  3,  Epact  22,  and  so  on,  the  Epact  inci-easing 
II  days  each  year,  with  30  days  di"opped  whenever  reached;  until  the 
20th  year  as  again  year  i  bi'ought  Epact  29,  called  o  by  a  "  saltus  " 
here  of  i  day  to  keep  the  cycle  right. 

§  82.  This  Greek  ig-year  cycle  proved  such  a  convenience  that 
Julius  Caesar,  in  reforming  the  Roman  Calendar,  B.  C.  46,  established 
his  new  year  at  Jan.  i,  B.  C.  45,  purposely  located  on  the  day  of  the 
new  moon;  so  that  this  year  being  year  i  of  the  cycle  (because  15  times 
15=285  years  from  B.  C.  330=B.  C.  45), — the  Epact  of  this  year  should 
beo,  /.  t\,  no  age  of  the  moon  on  Jan.  i.  The  next  year  as  cycle  year 
2  would  thus  have  Epact  11  (or  moon  11  days  old  on  Jan.  i),  the  next 
year  or  cycle  year  3,  Epact  22;  next  year,  Epact  33 — 30=3,  etc. 

In  thus  accurately  fixing  his  Jan.  i,  at  the  new  moon,  Julius  had 
corrected  out  the  i  day  of  error,  that  had  (in  310  years)  accumulated  in 
the  Greek  cycle.  For  the  178  days  from  their  summer  solstice 
reckoned  as  June  28,  back  to  January  i,  was  one  day  more  than  the  6 
lunations  or  177  days  that  intervened.  So  that,  changing  the  stand- 
ard date  for  applying  the  Epacts  from  June  28,  not  to  January  2  or  177 
days  earlier,  but  to  January  i  or  178  days  earlier,  with  the  same 
Epacts  applied; — was  reallj'  increasing  all  the  Epacts  i  day;  which 
was  just  what  the  error  of  the  Greek  cycle  after  that  length  of  time 
required.  ^ 

§  83.  Now  the  Jewish  nation  could  not  escape  from  these  improve- 
ments of  their  times,  in  the  methods  of  determining  the  lunar  new  3'ears. 
And  they  had  their  choice  in  our  Savior's  time,  whether  to  use  the 
original  Greek  cycle,  or  to  use  the  later  corrected  Roman  cycle  of 
Julius.  It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  they  would,  after  becoming  intimate 
(as  they  were)  with  the  Greek  language  and  learning,  and  with  the 
Roman  government  and  control,  and  after  seeing  therefore  the  simple 
and  sure  method  they  had  of  knowing  when  the  lunar  year  began,— it 
is  not  at  all  likely,  that  they  would  confine  themselves  to  the  old  rude 
way  of  waiting  for  observation.  But  they  would  naturally  learn 
how,  by  the  cycle,  to  determine  the  new  year  beforehand,  and  have  it 
known  all  over  the  land,  without  the  need  of  bonfires  to  spread  the 
news.  But  which  would  they  follow,  the  Greek  or  the  Roman  reckon- 
ing, differing  (we  see)  by  one  day  ? 

A  Jewish  application  of  the  cycles  would  work  thus:  The  Greek 
Epacts  applied  to  June  28,  would  apply  with  equal  accuracy  to  March 
31,  just  three  lunations  earlier.  But  the  Roman  Epacts  (the  same  in 
value)  applied  to  Jan.  i,  would  apply  with  equal  accuracy  to  March  o 


DEATH   OF    CHRIST  03 

or  jMarch  30,  just  two  or  three  lunations  later.  The  question  was, 
which  should  they  do  ?  Should  they  with  the  Greeks  apply  the 
Epacts  to  March  31,  or  should  they  with  the  Romans  apply  the  same 
Epacts  (o,  II,  22,  3,  etc.)  one  day  earlier  at  Mar.  30  ? 

For  instance,  in  A.  D.  30,  the  year  of  Christ's  crucifixion,  which 
was  the  year  18  of  the  cycle,  (  hecause  the  year  A.  D.  32  is  361  years 
or  just  ig  times  19  years  after  B.  C.  330,  and  therefore  the  same  cycle 
year  i),  the  Epact  was  7.  Which,  if  applied  Greek-wise  to  March  31, 
made  i  Nisan  to  be  March  25,  and  the  14th  Nisan  to  be  Friday,  April 
T^th  as  the  crucifixion  day;  but  if  applied  Roman-wise  to  March  30,  the 
same  Epact  7  made  i  Nisan  to  be  March -24,  and  the  ijth  Xisaii  to  be 
Friday,  April  7th,  as  the  crucifixion  day.  Which  was  it  ?  Here  is 
the  whole  question  of  the  ages  condensed  before  us. 

I  84.  The  Jewish  rulers  could  but  see  that  the  Roman  dating 
(having  been  corrected  a  day)  was  the  more  accurate,  giving  i  Nisan 
as  soon  as  the  moon  could  anyway  appear;  while  the  Greek  dating  put 
I  Nisan  when  the  moon  was  two  days  old.  But  then  the  Greek 
method  was  the  older  and  better  known,  perhaps  long  used  by  the 
Jews  before  Julius'  method  was  known.  And  then  again,  the  Jews 
had  a  prejudice  against  adopting  the  ways  of  their  Roman  conquerors, 
while  the  Greeks  had  a  great  influence  over  them.  Says  Neander, 
(Chh.  Hist.,  Vol.1  p. 50),  concerning  those  times:  "In  the  course  of 
those  centuries  (from  Alexander  the  Great)  the  peculiar  asperity  and 
stiffness  of  the  Jewish  chai"acter  must  have  been  considerably  tem- 
pered by  intercourse  with  the  Greeks.  *  *  *  The  Jews  (in  Alexan- 
dria), completely  imbued  with  the  elements  of  Hellenic  culture,  en- 
deavored to  find  a  mean  betwixt  these  and  the  religion  of  their 
fathers."  Of  course,  then,  the  Sanhedrim  would  more  naturally 
follow  the  old  Greek  reckoning  of  the  lunar  year,  even  though  not 
quite  so  exact  as  the  more  modern  Roman  way,  especially  as  the  later 
Greek  dating  agreed  nearer  with  rough  observation  of  the  moon.  And 
so  they  had  their  months  and  their  passovers  really  one  day  too  late. 

And  yet,  this  would  not  be  without  remonstrance  of  some  among 
the  people,  of  those  most  intelligent  and  least  prejudiced  against  the 
Romans,  and  most  anxious  to  conform  to  the  strict  time  assignments  of 
the  law, — a  characteristic  of  the  Saducces,  and  of  the  later  sect  of 
Caraites.  Perhaps  there  were  disputes,  when  the  new  moon  was 
sometimes  so  long  before  i  Nisan  was  allowed  to  come, — questioning 
whether  the  new  year  and  the  passover  ought  not  to  be  a  day  sooner. 
And,  perhaps  our  Savior  purposely  allowed  himself  to  sanction  that 
earlier  and  more  correct  date  for  the  passover  (well  understood,  it  may 
be,  by  the  disciples),  by  celebrating  his  anti-typical  passover  on  the 
evening  beginning  the  Sanhedrim's  14th  Nisan  (which  was  really  the  true 
15th  Nisan,  if  rightly  numbered),  in  order  himself  to  be  put  to  death  as 


64  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

"the  Lamb  of  God  "  next  day,  at  the  hour  when  they  slaughtered  the 
Lambs.     (See  §48,  note.) 

I  85.  The  law  allowed  the  keeping  of  the  passover  out  of  its  regu- 
lar time  (in  the  2nd  month  instead  of  the  ist)  when  necessity  required 
(Num.  ix:  10,  11);  and  Hezekiah  availed  himself  of  this  privilege  (2 
Chron.  xxx:  2,  3,  15).  The  present  Jewish  traditions  allow  a  duplicate 
day  in  special  cases  for  a  new  moon  or  other  observance.  And  who 
shall  say,  that  the  slajnng  of  paschal  lambs  "between  the  evenings  " 
of  the  14th  Nisan  (Ex.  xii:  16)  might  not  at  times  be  construed  as  per- 
mitting such  paschal  observance  in  the  begiiDiing  of  14th  Nisan,  be- 
tween its  own  initial  evening  and  the  evening  of  the  15th  following  it  ? 

There  seems  at  Acts  ii:  i,  an  intimation  of  such  a  double  reckon- 
ing of  the  feast  days  that  j^ear.  "When  the  Day  of  Pentecost  was 
fully  come,"  Re7)is.  niarg.,  "was  being  fulfilled;"  as  if  there  had  been 
an  initial  day  claimed  by  some  for  the  festival,  but  the  official  date  was 
waited  for. 

The  three  first  evangelists,  writing  earlier,  when  the  dispute  about 
days  was  in  mind,  and  when  most  likely  (as  a  result  of  the  dispute)  the 
newer  and  more  correct  cycle  reckoning  had  come  into  use,  took  pains 
to  say,  that  Christ  commanded  paschal  preparations  to  be  made  on  the 
correct  14th  Nisan  "when  the  passover  must  be  killed,"  (ought  to  be 
killed,  or  was  due  to  be  killed,  Lu.  xxii:  7);  so  that  it  was  really  a  true 
and  legal  passover  that  Christ  observed,  not  a  sham  passover  as  some 
might  claim.  Whereas,  John,  writing  long  afterward,  when  such 
trifles  ^were  lost  sight  of,  emphasized  rather  the  fact,  that  Christ  was 
sacrificed  as  "the  Lamb  of  God,"  at  the  very  hour  of  the  JeiL's"  14th 
Nisan  when  they  were  slaying  the  lambs.     (John  i:  31,  etc.) 

I  86.  If  we  are  asked,  then,  on  which  day  Christ  died,  the  14th  or 
the  15th  Nisan  of  the  movable  lunar  year,  our  answer  is:  He  died 
on  what  everybody  knew  to  be,  and  what  he  treated  as  being,  the 
proper  15th  Nisan, — but  on  what  was  by  edict  of  the  Sanhedrim  the 
official  (though  incorrect)  14th  Nisan  of  the  Jews  that  year,  which  thus 
has  become  the  historical  date  of  the  crucifixion. 

The  work  of  Chs.  Ed.  Caspari  (Hamburg,  1869),  well  proves  this 
date,  A.  D.  30,  April  7,  Friday,  the  14th  of  Nisan.  (Bib.  Sacra.,  July, 
1871,  p.  469.) 

The  lately  discovered  apocryphal  "Gospel  of  Peter,"  understood 
to  have  been  written  about  A.  D.  150,  testifies  that  the  crucifixion  was 
not  on  the  feast  day  but  on  the  day  before.  For  it  tells  of  Herod  as 
speaking  to  Pilate  about  the  burial  of  Jesus,  and  saying,  "Already 
the  Sabbath  draws  on;  and  it  is  written  in  the  law,  that  the  sun  must 
not  go  down  upon  a  person  put  to  death  on  the  day  before  their  feast, 
the  feast  of  unleavened  bread."  This  shows  the  opinion  entertained 
upon  this  subject  in  those  early  days. 


DEATH    OF    CHRIST  '  65 

"They  crucified  him  on  the  day  before  the  feast  of  the  passover." 
{Babylonian  Gemara,  Tract.  Sanhedrim,  Fol.  43.  In  Bib.  Sac,  Oct., 
1868,  p.  742.)  "The  Tahiiud  places  the  crucifixion  on  Nisan  14th." 
{ySclrcuartz.) 

In  Mark  xv:  21,  and  Luke  xxiii:  26,  "Simon  the  Cyrenian"  was 
"coming  out  of  the  yft'A/,"— so  the  word  (agros)  is  commonly  trans- 
lated in  other  passages.  And  this  would  not  be  likely  if  that  crucifix- 
ion day  was  the  15th  Nisan,  the  day  of  festival  rest.  (So  says 
Schwartz.) 

That  the  supper  which  our  Lord  ate  with  his  disciples,  was  in  an- 
ticipation of  the  passover  eaten  by  the  Jews  the  next  evening,  and  that 
this  was  probably  occasioned  by  a  diverse  reckoning  of  the  lunar  date, 
has  been  suggested  by  several  writers;  though  none  have  given  the  ex- 
plicit form  to  the  thought  which  we  have  exhibited  above.  Hales  gives 
this  view  in  general,  and  Farrar  in  his  life  of  Christ  mentions  it, 
Cudworth  gave  a  distinct  form  to  the  theory,  saying:  "If  after  [the 
later  assigning  of  the  new  inoon]  reputable  witnesses  came  from  far, 
and  testified  that  they  had  seen  the  new  moon  in  its  due  time,  the 
Senate  [Sanhedrim]  were  bound  to  alter  the  beginning  of  the  month, 
and  reckon  it  a  day  sooner.  As  the  Senate  were  very  unwilling  to  be 
at  the  trouble  of  a  second  consecration  when  they  had  once  fixed  on  a 
wrong  day, ...  .they  afterwards  made  a  statute  to  this  effect,  'That 
whatever  time  the  Senate  should  conclude  on  for  the  calends  of  the 
month,  though  it  were  certain  that  they  were  in  the  wrong,  yet  all 
were  bound  to  order  their  feasts  according  to  it.'  "  This  is  what  Cud- 
worth  gathered  from  the  Babylonish  Talmud  and  from  Maimonides; 
and  he  supposed  that  this  was  what  actually  took  place  in  the  time  of 
our  Lord;  showing  from  Epiphanius,  that  there  was  contention 
{thoriibos),  a  tumult  among  the  Jews,  about  the  passover  that  very 
year.     (See  Prof.  Townsend's  Notes  on  the  Gospels,  p.  158.) 

1 87.  Rev.  J.  K.  Aldrich  (in  the  Bib.  Sacra,  July  1870,  p.  418) 
adopts  this  view;  but  he  errs  (as  we  think)  in  making  Christ's  earlier 
15th  Nisan  begin  on  ll^ednesday  at  sunset,  with  Christ  crucified  on 
Thursday  as  the  14th  day  of  the  Sanhedrim.  His  ground  for  it  is  the 
allegation  of  "  Roger  Bacon,  Manne  and  Scaliger,  Dodwell  and  Fer- 
guson," that  the  paschal  full  moon  that  year,  A.  D.  30,  was  on 
IVed/iesday.  We  have  shown  the  folly  of  such  random  astronomical 
assignments  (here  at  §  17-22),  and  have  demonstrated  (at  §  41)  that 
the  full  moon  was  not  till  Thursday  night  at  9  p.  m,  of  April  6  in  A.  D. 
30.  So  that  all  this  Wednesday  reckoning  of  our  Lord's  supper  falls 
to  the  ground;  and  with  it  the  whole  theory  of  a  Thursday  crucifixion. 

The  early  churches  of  the  2nd  century,  divided  on  the  question, 
whether  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection  (or  Easter)  should  be  cele- 
brated always  on  Friday  and  on  Sunday,  as  they  occurred  in  the  week^ 


66  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

or  always  on  the  14th  and  i6th  Nisan,  as  they  occurred  in  the  lunar 
month.  The  western  churches  contended  for  Friday  and  Sunday  and 
at  last  prevailed,  giving  us  Easter  as  we  have  it  now;  the  eastern 
churches,  more  influenced  by  Jewish  ideas,  long  adhered  to  the  14th 
and  i6th  of  the  Jewish  month  as  their  Easter  dating.  They  were 
therefore  called  "  quartadecimani,"  which  shows  that  the  later  claims 
of  the  15th  Nisan  as  crucifixion  day  had  not  then  ai^isen.  Neander 
(Vol.  I,  p.  298,)  finally  comes  to  this  conclusion. 

As  we  have  shown  that  the  ci-ucifixion  was  on  Friday  the  14th 
Nisan  of  the  Jews,  it  follows  that  the  day  of  "  First  Fruits  "  (the  i6th 
Nisan  "  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath  "  (Lev.  xxiii:  11),  was  on  Sun- 
day, the  morning  of  "first  fruits"  and  of  Christ's  resurrection;  veri- 
fying the  words  cf  Paul  (I  Cor.  xv:  20,  23),  that  Christ  rose  as  "the 
first  fruits  of  them  that  slept";  even  as  he  also  saj's  (I  Cor.  v:  7), 
"Christ  our  passoTcri?,  sacrificed  for  us,"  having  died  at  the  very  hour 
when  the  passover  lambs  were  slain.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
apostle  in  these  passages  is  indicating  how  closely  Christ  the  antitype 
occupied  the  place  and  the  time  of  the  types,  as  a  paschal  "  Lamb  " 
slain  and  as  the  "  First  Fruits"  of  harvest.  So  that  here  we  have  a 
convincing  proof  that  our  chronological  reckoning,  in  agreement  with 
all  church  tradition,  is  right. 

Moreover,  it  follows  that  the  day  of  Pentecost,  just  7  weeks  after 
the  day  of  first  fruits  (on  "the  morrow  after  the  7th  Sabbath,"  Lev. 
xxiii:  15,  16),  was  on  Sunday,  the  first  day  of  the  week;  thus,  by  the 
outpoured  Spirit,  sanctifying  and  affirming  that,  as  the  newly  estab- 
lished "  Lord's  Day  "  of  the  Christian  church.  This  is  in  accordance 
with  all  the  early  traditions.  These  valuable  facts  are  lost  to  us  by 
the  theory  that  Friday  was  the  15th  Nisan  as  the  day  before  "first 
fruits,"  §60,  (the  day  of  crucifixion  as  held  by  Weiseler,  the  day 
after  crucifixion  as  held  by  Aldrich.)* 

I  88.  It  only  remains  to  notice  the  passages,  which  are  cited  from 
the  gospels  as  proving  a  discrepancy,  in  the  opinion  of  Tholuch  and 
others.  John's  gospel  plainly  assigns  the  Lord's  Supper  to  the  night 
before  the  Jews  ate  the  passover.  (John  xiii:  i,  2,  and  xviii:  28,  and 
xix:  14,  31,  etc.)  But  the  other  three  gospels  (at  Mat.  xxvi:  17,  Mark 
xiv;  12,  Luke  xxii:  7)  seem  as  if  teaching  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  in 
the  very  night  of  the  Jews'  passover.  The  appearance  of  discrepancy, 
however,  is  unduly  magnified.  What  Matthew  says  (xxvi:  20),  when 
exactly  rendered,  is  not  that  Jesus  sat  down  with  the  twelve  "when  the 
even  was  come,  '  but  simply   "  it  being  evening  {opsias  genomenees)  he 

*The  Bib.  Sacra,  April,  1894  (p.  339),  by  rejecting  the  i6th  day 
theory  (§59),  retains  "Christ  the  first  J ni  its''  on  Sunday  as  the 
17 th  of  Nisan;  but,  by  thus  putting  the  crucifixion  Friday  on  the  15th 
of  Nisan,  it  fails  to  make  "  Christ  our /rt-f-y^^T/^T  sacrificed  for  us." 


DEATH  OF    CHRIST  Oi 

sat  down  with  the  twelve."  {Mark,  "in  the  evening  he  cometh;" 
Luke,  "  when  the  hour  was  come.")  It  was  late  in  the  evening;  and 
the  evening  may  have  been  going  on  all  the  while  from  the  first  men- 
tion of  preparation  till  the  sitting  down. 

Hence  Luke  xxii:  7,  "Then  came  the  day  of  unleavened  bread, 
when  the  passover  must  be  killed,"  need  not  mean  (as  usually  as- 
sumed) "then  come  the  day-time  of  the  14th  Nisan, "  but  rather, 
"  Then  came  (or  was  coming  on)  the  evening  or  first  part  of  the  Jews' 
14th  Nisan,  during  which  day  (usually  in  its  last  hours  of  sunlight) 
the  passover  would  be  killed."  The  disciples  may  have  started  at  sun- 
set of  Thursday,  and  easily  made  ready  in  two  or  three  hours;  since 
Jesus  had  evidently  arranged  things  beforehand,  and  told  them  they 
would  find  the  room  "furnished  and  prepared."  Even  a  lamb  killed 
early  in  the  evening  of  the  14th  Nisan  would  be  "between  the  two  even- 
ings "  of  that  day,  and  might  be  thought  legal  in  emergency;  or  they 
may  have  dispensed  with  the  lamb,  making  this  only  a  preparatory 
supper,  to  be  completed  (the  disciples  thought)  the  next  night.  The 
message  sent  to  the  owner  of  the  house  shows  a  forestalling  of  the 
feast:  "  Say  unto  him,  the  Master  saith.  My  time  [for  the  passover] 
is  at  hand.  I  make  it  with  thee."  In  this  view  of  the  case  discrep- 
ancy disappears,  and  both  Jesus  and  the  Jews  have  the  same  14th 
Nisan. 

\  8g.  Mark  Christ's  language  at  the  table  (Luke  xxii:  15):  "With 
desire  I  have  desired  to  eat  this  passover  with  you  before  I  suft'ei", " — 
not  that  I  am  actually  eating  the  full  passover,  but  I  have  earnestly 
desired  to  ^■A.Vx'i.  As  if  to  say:  "  I  have  so  earnestly  desired  this  op- 
portunity of  establishing  the  Lord's  Supper  in  place  of  the  passover 
that  I  have  taken  pains  by  anticipation  to  get  you  around  this  table 
before  I  die,  (as  die  I  must  to-morrow,  though  you  know  it  not); — not 
indeed  eating  the  full  desired  passover  with  the  Jews,  but  substituting 
for  it  a  better  memorial  of  my  death.  My  strong  desire  has  led  me 
thus  to  forestall  my  death."  This  passage,  instead  of  showing  that 
Jesus  was  eating  the  paschal  lamb  with  the  Jews  (as  often  argued),  in- 
dicates rather  the  contrary. 

And  all  the  three  evangelists,  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke,  do  them- 
selves (like  John)  show,  that  the  arrest,  trial,  and  crucifixion  of  Christ, 
were  not  on  the  i5tli  but  on  the  14th  Nisan.  For  they  give  the 
preliminary  agreement  of  the  rulers:  "  Not  on  the  feast-day,  lest  there 
be  an  uy)roar  among  the  people  (Mat.  xxvi:  2,5,  Mark  xiv:  1,2,  Luke  xxii: 
I,  2,  6.)  "  The  feast  day  "  or  day  of  holy  co7ivocation,  when  there  was 
a  great  concourse  of  people,  and  might  easily  arise ^an  "  uproar,"  was. 
the  15th  Nisan.  And  after  so  prudently  planning  to  avoid  that  day, 
they  (and  Judas)  hurried  u])  matters  on  the  14th.  It  is  entirely  unbe- 
lievable, that  they  went   through  all  the   hubbub  of  arrest,  trial  and 


68  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

crucifixion  during  that  "feast  day  "  which  they  had  resolved  to  avoid; 
to  say  nothing  of  their  scrupulosity  not  allowing  such  doings  on  a 
day  wherein  the  law  forbade  them  to  do  any  servile  work. 

Thus  the  synoptists,  instead  of  being  in  collision  with  John,  as  al- 
leged, are  confirmatory  of  him.  The  seeming  discrepancy  between 
the  Evangelists  is  harmonized,  and  the  historic  accuracy  of  the  Gos- 
pel is  verified  and  assured. 

[Appendix  E  left  in  manuscript.] 


PART  I 


Other  New  Testament  Dates. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Christ's  Baptism,   Etc. 

?  95.  The  Gospel  of  John  enumerates  four  f>asso7'ers  in  the  minis- 
try of  Christ,  viz.:  (i)  John  ii:  13,  (2)  John  v:  i,  (3)  John  vi:  4,  with 
vii:  II,  (4)  John  xii:  i.  The  second  of  these  is  called  simply  "a 
feast/'  or,  rather,  "  //it'  feast,"  as  given  (from  many  ancient  authori- 
ties by  Tischendorf,  last  edition),  and  by  the  margin  of  the  Revised 
Version.  That  it  means  the  passover  is  shown  by  Robinson  {Harm, 
of  the  Gosp.  I  36,  }iote). 

The  four  passovers  prove  that  Christ's  ministry  was  07'er  three 
years,  so  that  his  baptism  must  have  been  near  the  beginning  of  A.  D. 
27,  just  as  was  taught  by  the  earliest  fathers  oflthe  church.     (See  §6.) 

When  John  began  his  work,  probably  six  months  before,  at  thirty 
years  of  age,  that  is,  in  A.  D.  26,  it  was  "the  15th  year  of  Tiberius 
Cssar  (Luke  iii:  i,  2).  So  that  Luke  must  have  reckoned  the  reign  of 
Tiberius,  not  from  the  death  of  his  predecessor  Augustus,  Sep.  19,  A. 
D,  14,  but  from  the  jbint  reign  of  the  two,  beginning  A.  D.  12.  The 
certainty  of  this  joint  reign,  as  understood  in  the  provinces,  is  shown 
by  the  ancient  Roman  historians,  Velleius  Paterculus,  Tacitus,  Sue- 
tonius and  Dion  Cassius,  "  who  all  agree  that  Tiberius  was  colleague 
of  Augustus  two  or  three  years,  and  this  was  confirmed  by  decree  of 
the  senate."     (Hales.) 

"  Senatus  populusque  Romanus,  postulante  patre  ejus,  ut  equum 
ei  jus  omnibus  provinciis  exercitibusque,  quam  erat  ipsi  decreto, 
complexus  est."  {Velleius  Paterculus,  B.  II,  c.  121,  speaking  of  Tib. 
and  Aug.) 


VARIOUS    DATES  09 

"  Lege  per  consules  lata,  ut  provincias  cum  Augusto  communiter 
administraret,  simulque  censum  ageret,  condito  lustro  in  Illyricum 
profectus  est."     {^Suetoniusin  Tiberius,  c.  21.) 

''  Simtclqne  censum  ageret,  i.  e.,  during  the  time  when  a  provincial 
census  was  being  taken.  This  then  was  (B.  C.  4  +  15  =  )  A.  D.  12,  as 
the  beginning  of  indiction  one."     (Schwartz.) 


The  Xativitv 


\  96.  Jesus  was  born  before  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great.  But 
when  was  his  death  ?  A  sJio7-t  time  before  Herod  died,  there  was  an 
eclipse  of  the  moon,  which  has  been  identified  as  occurring  March 
13th,  B.  C.  4.  In  June  of  that  year  B.  C.  4  began  the  34th  year  from 
Herod's  conquest  of  Jerusalem,  on  "  the  fast  of  the  3d  mo."  (Antiq. 
14,  xvi:  4)  z.  e.,  in  June,  B.  C.  37.  Josephus  says  that  he  reigned  "'34 
years."  (Antiq.  17,  viii:  i;  War  i,  xxxiii:  8.)  His  death  in  the  34th 
year  would,  therefore,  be  some  time  between  June,  B.  C.  4  and  June, 

B.  C.  3.  And  at  the  following  passover,  (Whiston  says  of  B.  C.  3, 
Jos.  Antiq.  17,  ix:  3),  sedition  was  raised  against  Archelaus,  before  he 
was  confirmed  as  successor  by  Rome. 

The  bii^th  of  Jesus  will  thus  be  somewhere  near  the  beginning  of  B. 

C.  4,  not  far  from  the  time  of  the  eclipse  occurring  before  Herod's 
death.  (See  the  possibilities  of  the  occasion  depicted  in  my  series  on 
"The  Setting  up  of  a  New  Kingdom.")  This  agrees  exactl}'  with 
Luke  iii:  21-23,  ''  ^^^^  Jesus  himself  began  to  be  about  30  j-ears  of 
age"  at  his  baptism  early  in  A.  D.  27,  /.  e.,  30  years  after  the  begin- 
ning of  B.  C.  4.  The  nativity  could  hardly  have  been  near  the  begin- 
ning of  B.  C.  3  (as  Schwartz  and  others  suppose),  with  only  29  years 
to  the  baptism;  for  this  will  put  along  the  death  of  Herod  in  B.  C.  3 
too  long  after  the  eclipse  of  March  13,  B.  C.  4.  * 

^97.  From  June,  B.  C.  37  to  Herod's  death  was  strictly  t/ie  j^t/i 
year,  or  only  t,},  full  years.  This  appears  evident  thus:  The  year  of 
Archelaus'  banishment  Josephus  calls  "  the  loth  year"  of  his  govern- 
ment (Ant.  17,  xiii:  2),  di\.  the  beginning  o{  "the  37tli  year  of  Caesar's 
victory  over  Anthony  at  Actium"  (18,  ii:  i).      Therefore,   he  cannot 


*If,  in  order  to  have  Herod's  full  "  34  years  "  of  reign  to  B.  C.  4, 
as  well  as  the  full  "  107  years"  given  by  Josephus,  we  should  call  the 
accession  of  Herod  B.  C.  38,  instead  of  37, — this  would  require  us  to 
use  Josephus'  "  125  years  "  (instead  of  his  "  126  "  ),  reducing  his  "  27 
years"  after  Pompey  to  26;  and  it  would  hardly  comport  with  Herod's 
"7th  year"  at  Actium.  Or,  this  would  require  Pompey's  capture  of 
Jerusalem  to  be  at  B.  C.  65,  violating  the  Olympic  dating,  as  well  as 
other  facts.  Therefore,  Herod's  death  must  be  B.  C.  37.  (Period  F,  ^3.) 


70  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

here  begin  Archelaus  over  (37th — loth  or  36—9=)  27  years  after  the 
battle  of  Actium;  which  (being  Sep.  2,  B.  C.  31)  he  assigns  to  "  the  7th 
year"  of  Herod,  (15,  v:  i,  2),  whose  first  6  years  reached  from  June,  B. 
C-  37  to  June  31.  Now,  the  27  years  after  that  date  which  he  thus 
allows  to  Herod,  carries  Herod  only  to  the  summer  of  B.  C.  4,  (/.  e., 
31-27),  where  he  begins  to  reckon  Archelaus.  He  hei'e  gives  but 
(6-|-27=)  33  years  to  Herod,  instead  of  34. 

The  "34  years"  for  Herod's  reign  seems  (as  full  years)  to  be 
reckoned  to  the  accession  of  his  successor  Archelaus  by  the  Roman 
consent,  *  which  was  not  until  B.  C.  3,  some  time  after  Herod's  death. 
(Antiq.  17,  xi:  4.)  From  that  date  Josephusi^ckons  "69  years  "  to  the 
coming  of  Vespasian  against  Jerusalem  in  A.  D.  67  (War,  Book  2, 
title).  This  was  early  in  A.  D.  67.  For,  after  Vespasian's  arrival, 
Josephus  recites  all  his  campaigns,  from  early  spring  of  A.  D.  67 
(War  3,  iv:  2,  and  vii:  3,  29),  through  the  autumn,  (4,  i:  10),  to  the  next 
spring  of  A.  D.  68,  the  3d  month  Sivan  or  May,  (at  War  4,  viii:  i.) 
Two  or  three  months  after  this,  in  July  or  August,  Vespasian  was 
informed  that  "Nero  was  dead,"  (ix:  2), — he  having  died  early  in 
June,  A.  D.  68.     (Chambers"  Cyc.  says  "June  11,  A.  D.  68.")  \ 

So  then,  the  death  of  Herod  was  in  B.  C.  4  (not  3),  and  the  birth  of 
Christ  was  no  doubt  not  far  from  the  beginning  of  B.  C.  4.  (See 
§  loi  note.) 

§  98.  As  Schwartz  puts  Herod's  death  too  late  (B.  C.  3),  so  others 
set  it  too  early,  or  only  about  20  days  after  the  eclipse  of  Mar.  13,  B. 
C.  4.  Thus,  H.  B.  Tristam,  D.D.,  L.L.D.,  F.R.S.  in  the  S.  S.  Times, 
July  7,  1894,  says:  "Herod  died  about  a  week  before  the  passover, 
which  fell  on  the  12th  of  April,  B.  C.  4."  Whereas,  his  death  was 
probably  not  before  summer  of  that  year,  when  he  had  entered  upon 
his  J4th  year  from  his  conquest  of  Jerusalem,  which  cannot  be  re- 
moved from  June,  B.  C.  37.  (See  §  96,  note.)  Josephus  repeatedly 
says:  "Herod  reigned  34  years,"  i.  e.,  till  Archelaus  was  acknowledged 
at  Rome  as  his  successor  in  the  summer  of  B.  C.  3.  True,  Archelaus 
started  for  Rome  jitsf  after  a  passover,  (Jos.  War,  2,  ii:  i,  Antiq.  17, 
ix:  3);  concerning  which  Whiston  correctly  says:    "This  passover 


*  See  Restor.  of  Jos.,  §  21. 

f  That  Josephus  has  Nero's  death  in  June,  A.  D.  68,  appears  further 
thus:  He  makes  the  death  of  Vitellius  and  the  full  accession  of  Ves- 
pasian to  be  on  "  Casleu  3,"  /.  e.,  Nov.,  A.  D.  69  (War  4,  xi:  4);  and  he 
gives  Vitellius  "  8  mo.  5  days  "  {id.)  -\-  Otho  "  3  mo.  2  days  "  (ix:  9)  -f- 
Galba  "7  mo.  7  days"  (ix:  2); — total  18  mo.  14  days,  reaching  back 
from  the  9th  month  (Casleu  3)  to  the  19th  of  the  3d  month  (June  11)  in 
the  year  A.  D.  68,  for  the  death  of  Nero.  Before  which,  in  the  spring 
of  A.  D.  67,  Vespasian  came  to  Jerusalem;  whence  Josephus'  "69 
years  "  carry  us  back  to  the  beginning  of  B.  C.  3  (or  thereabouts)  for 
the  death  of  Herod  (or  rather  the  accession  of  Archelaus). 


VARIOUS    DATES  71 

* 

was  not  one  but  thirteen  months  after  the  echpse  of  the  moon,  Mar. 
13,  B.  C.  4."  The  mistake  of  Tristam  and  so  many  others,  arises 
from  calhng  the  interval  but  one  month,  with  only  about  20  days  from 
the  echpse  to  the  death  of  Herod,  and  with  only  a  week  or  10  days 
from  Herod's  death  to  the  passover;  into  neither  of  which  spaces  is  it 
possible  to  crowd  the  events  narrated  by  Josephus. 

After  the  eclipse,  Herod's  malady  increased,  he  consulted  various 
physicians,  journeyed  beyond  Jordan,  visited  the  warm  baths  at  Cal- 
liihoe,  had  oil  baths  administered,  came  again  to  Jericho,  made  mur- 
derous plots  in  view  of  his  death,  got  letters  from  Rome  about  his  son 
Antipater,  whom  he  kept  in  prison  awhile,  and  then  ordered  slain,  and 
after  five  days  more  died  himself;  could  all  these  things  take  place  in 
20  days  after  the  eclipse  of  Mar.  13  ?  No,  they  reached  till  June  at 
least,  as  the  time  of  his  death.  Then  there  was  funeral  pomp  seven 
days,  followed  by  many  consultations  with  the  people,  resulting  finally 
m  bitter  complaints  against  Archelaus,  and  at  last  along  insurrection, 
with  violent  abuse  of  him  "on  all  occasions,"  delaying  his  intended 
visit  to  Rome,  till  at  length  at  the  next  passover  it  broke  out  into  war, 
and  he  slew  3,000  Jews,  and  then  after  the  passover  started  for' Rome; 
did  all  these  events  occupy  but  a  week  or  ten  days  after  Herod's 
death  ?  No,  they  reached  from  the  summer  of  B.  C.  4  (at  Herod's 
death)  to  the  passover  in  April,  B.  C.  3. 


"Cyrenius  Governor  of  Syria." 

\  99.  Christ's  birth  at  Bethlehem  was  occasioned  by  an  enroll- 
ment (for  taxation),  "the  first  eni^ollinent  made  when  Cyrenius  was 
governor  of  Syria,"  (Luke  ii:  2,  Rev.)  Now  Josephus  gives  us  an  ac- 
count of  the  enrollment  and  "taxing"  referred  to  in  Acts  v:  37;  which 
he  says  occurred  in  A.  D.  8,  the  year  after  the  banishment  of  Arche- 
laus, telling  us  it  was  then  that  Cyrenius  became  governor  of  Syria. 
(Antiq.  17,  xiii:  5  and  18.  i:  i,  andii:  i.)  Neither  Josephus  nor  any  other 
author  mentions  Cyrenius  as  governor  of  Syria  at  any  previous  time, 
and  TertuUian  says  Christ  was  born  when  Saturninus  was  governor  of 
Syria.  The  seeming  difficulty  is  explained  in  several  different  ways, 
which  are  described  in  Lange's  Commentary.  The  most  probable  ex- 
planations are  these  two:  Either, 

I.  Read  the  "first"  adjectively,  as  in  the  Revision,  thus:  "This 
was  the  first  enrollment  (made)  with  Cyrenius  governing  Syria."  In 
which  case  Cyrenius  is  understood  as  having  twice  ru/ed  there;  either 
(a)  both  times  as  governor,  for  which  some  evidence  is  claimed  by 
Zumpt,  Momsen,  and  Schaff  (in  Lange);  or  (b)  the  first  time  in  B.  C. 
4  as  a  mere  census  legate  under  another  as  governor  of  Syria, — so 


72  NEW    TEST.     PERIOD    G  ^ 

taught  by  Browne  in  his  Ofdo  Seculoriini  and  by  others.  Or,  Luke 
may  be  supposed  to  speak  elhpticall)',  meaning,  "This  was  the  first 
of  two  enroUments  finished  itp  when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria." 
Or  else,  if  prefeiTed, 

2.  Read  the  "  fii^st  "  adi'eTbially,  with  the  common  version  and 
many  writers,  thus:  "  This  enrolhnent  ortheenroUment  itse/f[Si5  read 
by  Hales,  Pauhis,  Lange,  Van  Oosterzee,  etc.),  was  first  made  (or  ac- 
complished) when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria,"  in  A.  D.  8;  it 
having  been  only  "  decreed"  and  partially  acted  upon  in  B,  C.  4,  as 
in  verse  i  and  3,  4 — while  verse  2  is  parenthetic,  alluding  to  the  final 
result.  This  is  substantially  the  view  of  Van  Oosterzee,  and  is  cer- 
tainly reasonable.  Did  not  the  Jews,  hearing  of  the  decree,  in  their 
peculiar  zeal  for  tribal  genealogy,  hasten  (many  of  them)  to  their  own 
tribe  to  register?  And  did  not  the  main  enrollment  get  postponed  (per- 
haps by  the  death  of  Herod),  and  so  become  overlooked  in  history,— 
as  indicated  bj'  Joseph's  ready  retreat  to  Eg3'pt  without  waiting  for 
the  taxation  itself? 

§  100.  Concerning  this  subject  Hales  informs  us  [C/iron.  vol  3, 
p.  49): 

"The  enrolhnent  was  made  by  Cyrenius  (called  Quirinius  by  Taci- 
tus), as  we  learn  from  Justin  Martyr,  Julius  the  Apostate  and  Euse- 
bius^  when  Saturninius  was  president  of  Syi"ia(as  given  by  Tertullian), 
and  in  the  33d  year  of  Herod's  reign,  as  given  by  Eusebius  [/.  e.  in  B. 
C.  4].  After  Archelaus,  Cyrenius  was  again  sent,  this  time  as  presi- 
dent of  Syria.  We  may  read  '  the  taxing //jc//"  was  first  made  when 
Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria,'  with  the  first  word  (ante)  without  as- 
piration." 

We  have  further  testimony,  as  follows: 

"Znmpt  has  shown  by  an  exhaustive  analysis  of  all  the  facts  in 
our  possession,  that  Cyrenius  was  governor  for  the  first  tiuie  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  year  B.  C.  4,  Varus  having  preceded  him  in  the 
early  part  of  that  year.  But  there  is  a  more  certain  and  much  shorter 
method  of  demonstrating  that  C3'renius  was  at  a  census  in  this  year. 
The  old  cycle  of  Indictions,  as  Ideler  has  shown,  simply  indicated 
epochs  of  the  taxing  of  the  provinces  (each  15  years).  According  to 
the  Chronicon  paschale,  one  of  these  epochs  began  on  Sep.  i,  B.  C. 
49,  and  this  date  is  confirmed  by  the  revival  of  the  cycle  by  the  Em- 
peror Constantine  on  Sep.  i  of  A.  D.  312;  for  311  +  49=^  360,  or  24  of 
such  cycles.  Hence,  if  an  epoch  began  on  Sep.  i  of  B.  C.  49,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  indiction  epoch  that  coincided  with  the  birth  of  Christ 
must  have  begun  on  Sep.  i  of  B.  C.  (49 — 3  times  15  =  )  4.  Hence, 
our  Lord  was  not  born  any  earlier  than  Sep.  i,  B.  C.  4."  (Schwartz 
Chris.  Chron.  A,  gj.)  We  should  rather  say:  The  period  for  the 
taxing  was  to  end  on  Sep.  i,  B.  C.  4,  so  that  Joseph  hastened  to  Beth- 
lehem early  in  B.  C.  4,  bringing  the  nativity  there. 


VARIOUS    DATES 


The  Day  of  Nativity,   Etc. 

§  loi.  The  day-date  of  the  nativity,  as  well  as  of  the  ba]>tism  of 
Jesus,  is  utterly  beyond  our  knowledge.  The  assignment  of  Dec.  25 
for  the  nativity,  as  well  as  of  March  25  for  the  passion,  was  a  part  of 
that  arbitrary  arrangement  of  quarter-days  in  the  calendar  for 
religious  observance,  on  the  supposed  dates  of  the  equinoxes  and  sol- 
stices, Mar.  25,  June  25,  Sep.  25,  Dec.  25;  which  scheme  was  at  a 
later  date  made  to  apply  to  church  festivals,  and  has  no  authority 
either  from  Scripture  or  the  early  fathers.  (See  §  12.) 
"Easter,"  or  the  resurrection  Sunday,  is  known  as  at  the  vernal 
exqitinox:  but  all  other  dates  of  the  "  Christian  year,"  (so-called)  are 
mere  random  assignments  agreed  upon  solely  for  convenience  of  co- 
operative worship.  It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  the  birth  of  Jesus,  with 
shepherds  by  night  out  on  the  hill-sides,  took  place  in  the  cold  weather 
of  Dec.  25.* 

Like  other  early  writers,  "  Eusebius  nowhere  mentionsthe  day.  It 
was  the  common  opinion  of  the  Western  churches  that  Christ  was 
born  on  the  8th  Kal.  of  Jan.  [Dec.  25] ;  but  the  Eastern  churches  thought 
differently,  that  he  was  born  on  the  8th  Ides  of  Jan.  [Jan.  6],  so  much 
Valensius.  The  learned  have  found  so  great  difficulty  in  assigning  the 
day  of  our  Saviour's  birth  that  Scaliger  said,  '  unias  Dei  est  non 
hominis  definere.'  "     [In  Euseh.  Eccle.  Hist.,  /.  j/  page  /j.) 

"  The  Oriental  Christians  kept  the  memorial  of  the  Saviour's  birth 
and  of  his  baptism  on  one  and  the  same  day,  viz.,  the  6th  of  Jan.,  and 
this  day  they  called  Epij^hany."  [Miird.  ■Moslwiin,  Cen.  It:  p.  2,  c/i. 
4A5.) 

*  V^ery  likely  the  nativity  was  about  the  time  of  the  lunar  eclipse, 
March  13,  B.  C.  4;  and  30  days  afterwards  with  the  crowds  at  the 
passover  the  "wise  men"  appeared  at  Jerusalem:  and  10  days  later 
(just  after  the  paschal  seven  daj's  were  through)  the  40  days  to  the 
purification  ended;  and  it  may  have  been  in  Jerusalem  the  very  night 
after  the  presentation  in  the  temple  that  Joseph  was  waiTied  to  flee  to 
Egypt  from  the  slaughter-edict  which  Herod  was  just  then  issuing.  This 
flight  to  Egypt  prevented  immediate  return  to  Nazareth,  on  their  way 
to  which  they  probably  were  in  going  to  the  temple,  since,  of  course, 
they  did  not  contemplate  a  return  to  continued  residence  at  Bethlehem. 
Wh}'  should  they  go  back  there  ?  The  slaughter-edict  probably 
meant  infants  of  "  the  second  year  and  under,"  as  Home's  Introduction 
shows  (Vol.  II,  p.  77),  covering  the  25  days  that  had  passed  since  the 
spring  Snew  year,  March  28,  and  the  15  or  more  days  of  the  previous 
(or  second)  year,  back  to  the  date  given  bj'  the  wise  men  (as  we  are 
expressly  told;  so  that,  the  40  or  50  days  covered  would  include  but  a 
very  few  infants  born  in  so  small  a  town  as  Bethlehem,  and  the  non 
mention  of  the  slaughter  in  outside  history  is  thus  accounted  for. 
Herod  died  in  the  summer  (§  98),  and  some  time  after  that  Joseph  re- 
turned from  Egy]it. 


/4  NEW    TEST.     PERIOD    G 

"  From  Clemens  Alex.  (Strom.  I,  page  340),  the  only  passage  of  an 
ante-Nicene  writer  referring  to  any  nativity  festival:  '  Some  say  the 
nativity  was  on  the  5th  Pachon  [20th  May].  Followers  of  Basilides 
say  the  baptism  was  on  the  15th  Tybi  [Jan  10],  some  say  the  i6th.'  " 
{Coleman's  C/iris.  Antiq.) 

"  Not  only  was  the  day  of  nativity  miknown,  but  for  300  years  after 
the  ascension  no  day  was  set  apart  for  the  commeinoration  of  the  birth 
of  Christ.  According  to  authorities  given  by  Giesler,  Julius,  who  was 
bishop  of  Rome,  A.  D.  337-352,  first  appointed  the  25th  of  Dec.  for  the 
purpose.  Then,  it  was  not  observed  in  Cyprus  in  the  time  of  Epi- 
phanius,  A.  D.  376,  as  learned  from  his  silence  in  his  elaborate  ar- 
rangement of  the  ecclesiastical  dates.  Chrysostom,  A,  D.  387,  attests 
that  this  day  had  been  observed  at  Antioch  less  than  10  years.  After 
this  period  we  have  notices  of  the  day.  In  Egypt  it  was  not  yet  ac- 
knowledged in  A.  D.  420;  it  was  appointed  in  the  episcopate  of  Cyril  be- 
fore A.  D.  431."     {Clinton,  Fas.  Rom,  Art.  v: p.2jj.) 

"  The  idea  of  a  birthday  festival  was  foreign  to  the  Christians  of 
the  early  period.  *  *  *  Besides,  nothing  definite  was  ascertained 
respecting  the  date  of  Christ's  birth.  *  *  *  Clement  Alex,  seems  to 
censure  inquiry  as  to  it  as  idle  and  unprofitable."  (Neander,  Vol.  I, 
p.  301,  2.)  "In  the  earlier  ages  there  were  several  different  deter- 
minations of  the  day  of  Christ's  nativity."     (II.,  p.  314.) 


Pauline  Dates. 


I  102.  Paul's  voyage  to  Rome  was  in  the  winter  of  A.  D.  60-61 
For,  he  arrived  in  Rome  in  spring,  after  wintering  at  Malta;  and  he 
sailed  from  Palestine  at  the  beginning  of  the  preceding  autumn,  and 
was  in  Crete  in  October,  soon  after  the  "  Fast"  (Acts  xxvii:  g),  which 
was  on  the  loth  of  Tisri.  He  was  sent  to  Rome  by  Festus  upon  his 
appeal  to  Cgesar;  and  his  hearing  before  Festus  had  taken  place  about 
a  fortnight  after  the  arrival  of  Festus  in  the  province.  (Acts  xxiv:  27 
to  XXV :  6.)  Hence,  the  arrival  of  Festus  (and  consequently  the  depart- 
ure of  Felix)  took  place  in  the  summer  preceding  St.  Paul's  voyage, 
when  Paul  had  been  a  prisoner  two  complete  years  {dietias  pleTO- 
theises),  since  his  confinement  at  pentecost.  (Acts  xx:  16,  and  xxiv:  27.) 
That  summer  when  Festus  took  the  place  of  Felix  was  A.  D.  60,  as 
fully  proved  in  Conybeare  &  Howson.  {Life  of  St.  Paul,  Appen- 
dix C.) 

This  A.  D.  60,  is  the  date  given  also  by  Spanheim,  Pearson,  Tille- 
mont,  Bertholdt,  Winer,  Koehler,  Feilmoser,  Wurm,  Anger,  Weiseler, 
Lechler,  DeWette;  Schaff  says  60  or  61;  (and  61  is  given  by  Meyer, 
Hug,  Schmidt,  Schrader,  Schott,  and  Ewald;  see  Lange's  Acts,  Chron. 


VARIOUS    DATES  75 

Chart).  So  that,  there  is  pretty  general  agreement  upon  A.  D.  60,  as 
the  date  of  Paul's  starting  for  Rome. 

\  103.  The  Council  of  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv:  2)  was  held  about 
A.  D.  51.  For,  "i-eckoning  backward  from  the  ascertained  epoch 
A.  D.  60,  when  St.  Paul  was  sent  to  Rome,  we  find  that  he  must  have 
begun  his  second  missionary  journey  in  A.  D.  51,  and  that  therefore 
the  council  must  have  been  either  50  or  51.  This  calculation  is  based 
upon  the  history  in  Acts."  {Con.  &^  How.  Ch.  7  end.)  With  this 
date,  51,  agree  alsoTillemont,  Koehlei",  Anger;  De  Wette  says  51  or  50; 
(and  50  is  given  by  Basanage,  Schott,  Wieseler,  and  Schaff.)  Thus  is 
there  here  also  an  extensive  agreement. 

?  104.  Paul's  first  visit  to  Jerusalem  after  his  conversion 
(Acts  ix:  26)  was  about  A.  D.  37,  the  very  year  in  which  Aretas  became 
supreme  in  Damascus.*  (II  Cor.  xi:  32).  For,  in  Gal.  ii:  i,  Paul  says, 
"fourteen  years  after"  that  "I  went  up  again  to  Jerusalem  with 
Barnabas,  and  took  Titus  with  me  also,"  that  is,  to  attend  that 
council  (as  seen  by  Acts  xv:  2).  Now  A.  D.  51 — i4=A.  D.  37,  or  A.  D. 
50 — i4=A.  D.  36;  and  so  Paul's  first  visit  w,as  in  A.  D.  37  (or  possibly 
36).  It  is  set  at  A.  D.  37  by  Baronius  and  Tillemont,  and  at  A.  D.  36 
by  Pe'tavius  and  Vogel,  and  still  earlier  by  Bengel  and  Suskind. 
Conybeare  and  Howson,  by  calling  the  "  14  years  "  only  the  14th 
year  or  but  13  full  years,  get  this  first  visit  at  A.  D.  38;  and  there  also 
Meyer,  Usher,  Pearson,  Hug,  Feilmoser,  Olshausen,  Sanclement,  and 
Ideler  have  it.  (And  others  have  it  later  still.)  But  this  later  dating 
of  it  is  because  all  these  writei^s  put  Christ's  crucifixion  too  late  (viz., 
A.  D.  31  or  -^T^,  instead  of  the  right  A.  D.  30. )t 

Not  only  have  we  the  before-named  six  authors,  who  put  Paul's 
first  visit  as  early  as  7  years  after  Christ's  crucifixion  (i.  e.,  at  A.  D, 
37  or  before),  but  we  have  also  Meyer,  Bassauage,  Heinrich,  Hug, 
Schrader,  and  Schott,  putting  it  just  7  years  after,  and  Baronius, 
Petavius,  Usher,  Pearson,  Tillemont,  Bengel,  Vogel,  Suskind,  Koeh- 
ler,  Feilmoser,  and  Olshausen,  give  it  less  than  7  years  after.  Indeed, 
a  majority  of  authors  give  7  years  or  less  for  the  interval,  rather  than 
more.  Therefore  we  are  safe  in  saying  that  this  first  visit  was  7  years 
after  the  crucifixion,  i.  e.,  in  A.  D.  37,  as  already  found. 


*  This  supremacy  over  Damascus  of  Aretas,  king  of  Arabia,  was 
occasioned,  either  by  the  emperor  Caius  on  his  accession  to  the 
throne  in  March,  A.  D.  37,  or  else  by  the  withdrawal  of  Vitellius,  gov- 
ernor of  Syria,  upon  hearing  of  Tiberius'  death  in  March,  (as  Con.  & 
How.  show  in  Chap.  3). 

f  Conybeare  &  Howson  (Ch.  7,  end)  fully  show,  that  the  "  14 years  " 
must  end  at  the  Council,  and  not  at  any  other  visit  to  Jerusalem. 


76  NEW    TEST.     PERIOD    G 

§105.  The  conversion  of  Paul,  having  been  "three  years" 
before  his  first  visit  to  Jerusalem  (Gal.  i:  18),  took  place  in  A.  D.  34 
(possibly  33).  Baronius  and  Tillemont  agree  with  us  on  A,  D.  34,  and 
Jerome,  Petavius  and  Vogel  agree  on  A.  D,  33.  Moreover,  Meyer, 
Bassonage,  Michaelis,  Heinrichs,  Hug,  Schrader,  and  Schott,  all  put 
the  conversion  just  4  years  after  the  crucifixion,  just  as  we  do;  while 
Jerome,  Baronius,  Petavius,  Usher,  Pearson,  Tillemont,  Bengel, 
Vogel,  Suskind,  Koehler,  Feilmoser,  and  Olshausen,  all  put  it  less 
than  4  years.  Indeed,  a  large  majority  of  authors  give  4  years  or  less 
from  Christ's  death  to  Paul's  conversion.  "Within  three  years  of  the 
death  o4i Jesus,  we  se6  the  principal  and  most  zealous  agent  in  the 
persecution,  suddenly  allying  himself,  body,  soul  and  spirit,  with  the 
community  against  which  he  had  '  breathed  out  threatenings  and 
slaughter.'"  (AV?'.  Dr.  D.  W.  Shnon,  Berlin.)  Bib.  Sac,  Oct., 
1868,  p.  746. 

So  that,  as  we  prove  the  crucifixion  to  have  been  in  A.  D.  30,  we 
are  authoi-ized  in  saying  that  Paul's  conversion  was  in  A.  D.  34;  which 
is  just  at  the  end  of  the  "seventy  weeks"  or  490  years  of  Daniel, 
reaching  fi"om  the  7th  year  of  Artaxerxes,  B.  C.  457,  to  A.  D.  34.  The 
last  of  those  weeks,  or  the  final  7  years,  began  at  the  baptism,-  A.  D. 
26-27,  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Jews,  and  reached  to  the  con- 
Aversion  of  Paul  and  Cornelius,  A.  D.  33-34,  the  finished  Gospel  for  the 
Gentiles.*  Thus  "he  confirmed  the  covenant  with  many  for  one 
week"  (Dan.  ix:  27);  while  "in  the  midst  of  the  week,"  i.  e.,  in  A.  D. 
30,  Messiah  "caused  sacrifice  and  oblation  to  cease,"  nailing  it  to  his 
cross  when  he  was  "cut  off"  (ver.  26). f  And  so,  all. our  datings  are 
confirmed,  and  the  divine  prophecy  is  proved  true.  (See  period  F, 
§  14,  and  E,  S  68.) 

§  106.  New  Testament  Events. 
Birth  of  Christ,  4  B.  C. 

Annas,  H.  P., if  8  to  15  A.  D. 

Caiaphas,  H.  P.,  25  to  34  A.  D. 

*  "  Paul  was  summoned  to  evangelize  the  heathen  (Acts  ix:  15),  and 
Peter  began  this  (with  Cornelius)  almost  simultaneously.  The  great 
transaction  of  admitting  the  Gentiles  to  the  church  was  already 
accomplished  when  the  two  apostles  met  at  Jerusalem  (A.  D.  37,  Gal. 
i:  18).  The  early  chapters  in  the  Acts  are  like  the  narrations  in  the 
Gospels;  it  is  often  hardly  possible  to  learn  how  far  the  events  related 
were  contemporaiy  or  consecutive."     {Conybeare  and Howson,  cli.  iv.) 

f  Formerly,  when  Christ's  death  was  supposed  to  be  at  A.  D.  33  (or 
even  34;  see  §  17),  the  last  week  of  the  70  was  explained  as  covering 
John's  ministry  and  Christ's  ministry,  each  reckoned  as  half  the  week. 
But  the  true  explanation  is  far  more  satisfactory. 

X  Annas,  or  Ananus,  was  father-in-law  to  Caiaphas,  and  officiated 
with  him. 


VARIOUS    DATES  77 


Baptism  of  Christ,  27  A.  D.,  earl}'. 

Death  of  Christ,  30  A.  D.,  April  7th,  Fri 

Conversion  of  Saul,  34,     and  Coi'nelius. 

Return  to  Jerusalem,  37,  Acts  ix:  26. 

Death  of  Agrippa,  44,  Actsxii:  23. 

Council  of  Jerusalem,  51,  Acts  xv:  2. 

Ananias',  H.  P.,  47  to  63,  Acts  xxiii:  2. 

Voyage  to  Rome,  60,  Acts  xxvii:  i. 

End  of  Acts,  62,  Acts  xxviii:  30. 

War  begins,  66,  in  May. 

Jerusalem  destroyed,  70,  6th  mo.,  8th  d. 


Roman  Emperors. 


§  107.  We  have  already  seen  (at  §  97)  that  Josephus  has  the 
death  of  Nero  at  June  (11)  A.  D.  68;  so  that,  with  Nero's  reign  given 
as  in  Josephus'  present  text,  at  "  13  years  8  days,"  (War  4,  xviii:  2), 
his  12th  year  of  Nero  would  begin  near  the  beginning  of  June,  A.  D. 
66.  But  he  himself  says,  (War  2,  xiv:  4):  "  The  war  began  in  the  12th 
year  of  the  reign  of  Nero,  in  the  month  of  Artemisins  [Jyar],"  that  is, 
in  April,  A.  D.  66.  So  that  Nero's  12th  year  must  have  begun  earlier 
than  his  length  of  reign  makes  it;  and  that  reign  must  have  been 
longer  than  his  present  text  gives  it. 

Most  authorities  give  Nero's  reign  as  13  yrs.  and  7  or  8  mo.,  mak- 
ing the  13th  year  begin  the  previous  October.  The  months  may  have 
been  dropped  out  from  Josephus'  value:  or  he  may  have  written  8 
mo.  instead  of  the  8  d.  now  found  in  his  text.  Taking  this  last  as 
Josephus'  true  reckoning,* —  and  also  calling  his  3  years  8  mo.  for 
Caius  as  3  years  10  mo.,  (so  given  by  Schwartz  and  others), — we  have 
the  dates  of  Josephus  as  follows: 


*  This  makes  Nero's  12th  year  end  Oct.,  A.  D.  66,  just  where  Jo- 
sephus ends  his  Book  2  chap,  xix  of  the  War.  The  rest  of  that  Book 
is  spent  upon  the  events  of  Nero's  13th  year,  until  the  early  spring  of 
A.  D.  67,  when  Vespasian  came  to  the  army  in  Palestine,  as  related 
at  the  beginning  of  Book  3.  For  on  arriving,  he  met  his  son  Titus  at 
Ptolemais  (or  Acre),  who  had  arrived  by  a  winter  voyage  "sooner 
than  the  winter  season  did  usually  permit."  (War  3.  iv:  2.)  The  pre- 
vious •'  12th  year  of  Nero,"  A.  D.  66,  was  "  the  17th  year  of  Agrippa  " 
(War  2,  xiv:  4),  and  the  2d  year  of  Florus  "  the  ruler  of  Judea.  (Antiq. 
20,  xi:  I.) 


NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 


§  io8.     JosEPHus'  Dates 


B. 

C. 

JVcir. 

Antiq. 

Aug.  9, 

48 

Ptol. 

Julius  Caesar 

I, 

xi:  I 

14,  xi:  I 

3  yr.  7  mo. 

Mar. 

44 

Can. 

Augustus 

2, 

ix:  I 

t8,  ii:  2 

57  -  6— 2d. 

A.  D. 

Sep. 

14 

14 

Tiberius 

2, 

ix:  5 

18,  vi:  10 

22-6 —  3 

Mar. 

37 

36 

Caius 

2, 

xi:  I 

19,  ii:  5 

3-8   [10] 

Jau. 

41 

40 

Claudius  

2 

xii:8 

20,  viii:  I 

3  -  8-20 

Oct. 

54 

54 

Nero 

4, 

ix:  2 

i3-[8]-(8) 



June 

68 

Galba 

4' 

ix:  2 

r7-7 

Dec. 

68 

Otho...., 

4' 

ix:g 

\  3-2 

1    — 

Mar. 

69 

Vitellius 

4. 

xi:  4 

"3d  Casleu  " 

18-5 

Xov, 

69 

Vespasian 

-1. 

x:  1-5 

July,  69 

A. 

d: 

68 

From  the  death  of  Julius=ii2  yr.  9m.  gd. 


The  3  yrs.  7  mo.  of  Julius  Cassar  are  reckoned  from  the  battle  of 
Pharsalia,  Aug.  g,  B.  C.  48  {Cham.  Cyc.)  to  March,  B.  C.  44,  the  death 
of  Julius  CfEsar.  Then  five  reigns  carry  the  date  in  yrs.  2  mo.  25d. 
to  early  in  June,  A.  D.  68,  at  the  death  of  Nero.  And  then  the  short 
reigns  cover  18  mo.  i4d.,  to  late  in  Nov.,  A.  D.  69, — or  112  yrs.  9  mo. 
gd.  after  the  death  of  Julius  Caesar  in  March. 

Ptolemy's  Canon  (in  the  last  column,  see  Period  F,  \  2),  dates  by 
whole  years,  from  the  Thoth  or  Egyptian  new-year  (in  Sep.  or  Aug.) 
precedifig  each  king's  accession;  but  reckons  Tiberius  from  A.  D.  14, 
because  the  transition  (Sep.  19)  was  so  near  the  Thoth  (Sep.  20).  Ves- 
pasian is  reckoned  from  July  i,  A.  D.  69,  when  he  was  proclaimed 
emperor  by  the  army  in  Syria  (Jos.  War  4,  x:  4);  so  that  the  Canon 
puts  his  accession  to  the  Thoth  of  A.  D.  68,  throwing  the  rest  of  the 
short  reigns  upon  Nero.  Although  Josephus  has  the  death  of  Vitellius 
in  Nov.  A.  D.  69,  yet  reckoning  Vespasian  from  the  previous  July  i, 
he  has  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  Aug.  A.  D.  70  as  in  the  second 
year  of  Vespasian. 


Jerusalem  Taken  A.  D.  70. 

§  109.  As  we  are  showing  the  dates  of  Josephus  backward  from  his 
own  time  to  the  distant  epochs  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  necessary 
for  us  to  be  assured  concerning  his  starting  point,  the  destruction  of 


VARIOUS    DATES  79 

Jerusalem  by  Titus,  "in  tlie  2d  year  of  Vespasian,"  as  he  says.  That 
this  was  fastened  by  him  to  the  year  A.  D.  70^ (not  6g  as  Schwartz 
asserts),  is  seen  already  by  his  datings  from  the  Maccabees  and  from 
Herod  downward.     Particularly, 

1.  Josephus  gives  "  107  years"  back  to  Herod's  capture  of  the  city 
in  B.  C.  37.  This  latter  date  is  fixed  and  certain,  as  we  show,  (period 
F,  <J  4);  and  if  we  add  the  107th  year  (/.  f.,  106  full  years),  we  are  car- 
ried to  A.  D.  70.*  The  full  "  107  years  "  taken  from  A.  D.  70  show  B. 
C.  38:  and  thus  it  is  impossible  to  get  the  terminal  date  any  earlier  than 
A.  D.  70. 

2.  Josephus  gives  the  exact  length  of  reigns,  in  years,  months,  and 
days,  for  every  emperor  down  to  Vespasian:  and  the  total  of  all  his 
numbers  (in  his  present  text  uncorrected)  is  in  years,  11  months,  17 
days  from  the  accession  of  Augustus  to  the  death  of  Vitellius.  This 
(112  years)  cannot  begin  earlierthan  March,  B.  C.  44,  when  Julius  Cae- 
sar was  assassinated,  and  therefore  reaches  to  A.  D.  69.  So  that,  the 
destruction  of  the  city  in  "the  2d  year  o.  Vespasian"  must  by  Jose- 
phus be  in  A.  D.  70.! 

3.  A.  D.  70  is  proved  by  the  headings  of  Books  in  Josephus'  War. 
The  "  167  years"  heading  Book  i  cannot  begin  before  the  spring  of  B. 
C.  170,  since  Josephus  himself  says  (Antiq.  12,  v:  3),  that  this  taking 
of  Jerusalem  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  was  in  "  the  143d  year  "  Selenic. 
The  "  167  years,"  therefore,  cannot  end  earlier  than  the  spring  of  B. 
C.  3  for  the  death  of  Herod.  The  "69  years  "  heading  Book  2  extend 
thence  to  the  spring  of  A.  D.  67  for  "  Vespasian's  coming."  The  time 
"about  I  year"  heading  both  Book  3  and  Book  4,  more  correctly 
amounts  to  2  year's  and  9  months,  (as  seen  at  §97,  108);  which  carry  us 
to  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  at  the  end  of  A.  D.  69.  And  then  the  6 
months  and  i  month  heading  Books  5  and  6,  end  in  August  A.  D.  70 
for  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.     No  other  date  can  be  made  out.t 


*In  adding  from  any  year  A.  D.  to  any  year  B.  C.  (and  vicr  Tcrsa) 
the  number  of  years  is  reduced  /,  because  A.  D.  i  and  B.  C.  i  are 
adjoining  years,  without  a  year  o  between. 

f  The  only  variations  needed  in  Josephus' numbers  are,  2  mo.  added 
to  Cains,  and  8  mo.  substituted  forS  d.  in  the  reign  of  Nero.  And  then 
we  have  the  true  reckoning,  as  universally  accepted;  which  (as  taken 
from  Josephus)  is  here  given  at  'i  108. 

t-Schwartz'  attempt  to  make  Josephus  have  A.  U.  6g  for  Josephus' 
date  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  is  part  of  his  strange  theory,  that 
all  the  Roman  dates  of  emperors,  etc.,  should  be  shoved  back  1  year 
earlier  than  they  are  universally  put,  Augustus'  death  at  A.  D.  13, 
Tiberius'  death  at  A.  D.  36,  etc. 


80 


NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 


§  no— Local  Authorities. 


J U DEAN    RULER 

SYRIAN    GOVERNOR. 

OUTSIDE   JUDEA. 

Herod  the  Great 

Archelaus, 

-3B.  V. 
-  8  A.  D. 

Cyrenius, 

Copernius, 

M.  Ambianus, 

—  II 

Annius  Rufus, 

—13 

Valerius  Gratus, 

—15 
— 26 

Flaccus, 

Pontius  Pilate, 

-36 
— 37 

Vitellius, 

Marcellus, 

Petronius, 

37  Agrippa  I. 

Murullus, 

—41 
—44 

Agrippal, 

Longinus. 

44  Agrippa  dies 

Cuspius  Fadus, 

Tib.  Alexander, 

—46 
—49 

Quadratus, 

49  Agrippa  II. 

Cum  anus, 

Felix, 

-53* 
—60 

Festus, 

—62 

Albinus, 

—65 

Cestius  Gallus, 

66Agrippa's  17th  yr. 

Gessius  Florus, 

Vespasian  came, 

-67 

early 

Titus  came. 

—70 

early 

CHAPTER  II. 

Women  at  the  Tomb. 

A    harmony    of    the    RESURRECTION    ACCOUNTS,  f 

"  The  first  day  of  the  week  .  .  .  Mary  Magdalene  came,  and  told  the  disciples 
that  she  had  seen  the  Lord." — John  xx  ;  1-18. 

§  III.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  was  a  momentous  event.  Upon 
the  certainty  of  it  hangs  our  eternal  hope.  For  He  is  the  first-fruits; 
and  if  the  first-fruits  fail,  no  harvest  can  come  of  resurrection  to  us. 


*Felix  began  at  the  "beginning  of  the  13th  year  of  Claudius." 
(Jos.  Ant.,  20,  7ni:  /.)  "Tacitus  places  the  beginning  of  Felix  earlier: 
but  on  such  a  question  his  authority  is  not  to  be  compared  with  that 
of  Josephus."     See  Weiseler  (G?;/.  &^  Hinv.,  Appen.  j.) 

f  Reprint  from  the  Andover  Review,  November,  1886.  The  editor 
of  the  Review,  in  volunteering  a  liberal  reward  for  the  article,  said: 
"  You  are  very  thorough  in  this  investigation.  No  scholar  hereafter 
examining  this  subject,  can  afford  to  miss  your  exhaustive  treatment 
of  the  matter." 


VARIOUS    DATES  81 

Is  the  thing  sure  ?  There  are  four  narrators  of  Christ's  resurrection. 
And  there  is  a  seeming  diversity  in  their  accounts,  especially  in  regard 
to  the  women  at  the  tomb.  Hence  infidels  cavil;  and  even  Chiustians 
may  have  misgivings.  How  important  that  the  history  be  harmonized 
in  our  minds  ! 

Many  harmonies  have  been  offered;  but  none  of  them  are  per- 
fectly satisfactory.  Meyer  says:  "In  no  section  of  the  evangelical 
history  have  harmonists,  in  their  critical  mosiac  work,  been  compelled 
to  expend  more  labor,  and  with  less  success,  than  in  the  section  on  the 
resurrection.  The  adjustment  of  the  differences  between  John  and  the 
Synoptists,  as  also  between  the  latter  among  themselves,  is  impos- 
sible." And  Professor  Westcott  ("Gospels,"  p.  327)  says:  "The 
various  narratives  of  the  resurrection  place  the  fi-agmentariness  of  the 
Gospel  in  the  clearest  light.  They  contain  difficulties  which  it  is  im- 
possible to  explain  with  certainty.  ...  In  this  point  of  view,  we 
can  dismiss  without  any  minute  inquiry  the  various  schemes  which 
have  been  proposed,  for  bringing  the  accounts,  as  they  stand  at  pres- 
ent, into  one  connected  narrative." 

Notwithstanding  this  discouraging  outlook,  we  have  carefully  gone 
over  the  gi^ound,  and  have  reached  a  more  satisfactory  result,  which  we 
give,  as  follows: 

The  guide  to  this  whole  narrative  is  to  be  found  in  John  xx:  1-18, 
For,  of  all  the  four  narrators,  John  was  the  only  eye-witness,  and  was 
most  likely  to  give  the  true  order  of  events,  as  Doddridge  well 
remarks.  Let  us  therefore  take  him  for  our  guide.  We  will  divide 
off  his  account  of  the  resurrection  morning  (contained  in  these  18 
verses  into  seven  successive  periods  of  time,  putting  into  each  the  con- 
temporaneous items  mentioned  by  the  other  narrators. 

?  112.     The  Seven  Periods. 

Period  I.  (John,  verse  i.)  Women  at  the  Tomb.  (John,  i  verse; 
Luke,  2  verses;  Matthew,  3  verses;  Mark,  4  verses.)  John  mentions 
Mary  Magdalene  alone,  (for  reason  see  afterwards);  Matthew  mentions 
also  the  other  Mary;  Mark  adds  Salome;  Luke  adds  Joanna  and 
others. 

Period  z.  (John,  ver.  2,  3.)  Mary  gone;  meanwhile  a  vision  of  one 
angel.  Matthew  and  Mark,  through  8th  verse;  Luke,  ver.  3,  5,  9,  has  it 
mixed  in  with  a  later  scene. 

Period  ^.  (John,  ver.  4-10.)  Peter  and  John  at  the  Tomb.  (Luke, 
ver.  12,  24.)  The  women  meanwhile  flying  and  silent  (Mark,  ver.  8),  meet 
(it  may  be),  and  some  of  them  return  with  Maiy,  between  the  two 
visions  (Matthew  and  Mark,  ver.  8;  Luke,  ver.  9). 

Period  ^.  (John,  ver.  11-13.)  Mary  and  the  7Uomen  together  again 
at  the  tomb;  a  vision  of  two  angels.     John  speaks  of  Mary  as  if  alone 


SZ  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

(for  reason  see  afterwards).  She  was  not  alone  (Luke,  ver.  3-5,  10). 
I'tvo  angels  were  now  seen  by  them  all. 

Period^.  (John,  ver.  14-16.)  Alary  funis  aside  a/id  st'irs Jesus  {she 
"first,"  Mark,  ver.  g).  Meanwhile  the  other  women  are  still  in  the 
angel-vision  in  the  tomb  (Luke,  ver.  5-8). 

Period  6.  (John,  ver.  17.)  Other  wo^neii  cotuino  out  fro»i  tlie  tomb  see 
Jesus  with  Maty,  and  fall  at  his  feet;  He  says,  "Touch  me  not" 
(Matthew,  ver.  9,  10;  Luke,  ver.  9).  Soineoi  the  women,  hurrying  out 
and  scattering,  get  no  sight  of  Jesus,  but  run  and  tell  of  angels  only 
(Luke,  ver.  g,  22,  23). 

Period  7.  (John,  ver.  18.)  I'he  sight  of  Jesus  reported,  by  Mary 
(Mark,  ver.  10),  and  by  those  with  her  (Luke,  ver.  9,  10).  But  they  are 
perhaps  de/ayed  about  it,  by  being  met  and  questioned  by  the  author-' 
ities  (Matthew,  ver.  11);  so  that  the  two  disciples  had  started  for 
Emmaus  before  this  last  message  arrived  (Luke,  ver.  22,  23).  Their 
tidings  were  hardly  believed  (Mark  and  Luke,  ver.  11).  "  But  Peter 
arose"  (Luke,  ver.  12).  West,  White,  and  Doddridge  favor  the  regard- 
ing of  this  as  a  second  visit  of  Peter,  connected  with  this  sight  of 
Jesus  (ver.  34). 

Kecapitiilation. 

Period         123  4  5  ''        7 

John  XX :     i,     2,3,     4-10,      11-13,      14-16,      17,      iS. 

Thus  the  narrative  of  John  is  seen  to  be  exact  and  consecutive; 
Matthew  and  Mark  having  the  same  order,  only  filling  in  different  de- 
tails (with  some  left  out  which  were  best  known  to  John).  Luke  alone 
seems  somewhat  to  mix  the  two  visions  of  angels;  and  /le,  throughout 
his  Gospel,  is  notoriously  less  exact  than  the  rest  in  regard  to  dates — 
his  account  being  supervised  by  Paul,  who  was  not  an  eye-witness. 

We  here  see  that  there  were  t-ivo  7'isioiis  of  angels  (instead  of  one  or 
three,  as  some  make  out).  These  were  (i)  the  ^'//(•-r?;/i,'(7  vision,  seen  by 
others  in  absence  of  Mary;  (2)  the /7tV'-(c//_i,'<!'/ vision,  afterwards  seen 
by  Mary  with  the  rest  (not  by  them  se])arately  in  two  visions,  as 
usually  taught).  The  errors  and  perplexities  of  the  harmonists  are 
rtius  happily  resolved;  and  the  whole  story  becomes  luminous,  con- 
sistent, and  beautiful. 

I  113.     Ekkoneous  Views  Considekeu. 

Let  us  now  look  more  particularly  at  the  errors  connuitted,  and  the 
way  we  are  led  to  escape  them . 

Matthew  and  Mark  (first  eight  verses)  narrate  only  a  one-angel  vis- 
ion of  the  women;  and  Luke  (first  eight  verses)  narrates  only  a  two- 
angel  vision  of  the  women;  while   John  seems  to  give  no  angel-vision 


\-.\KIOLS    DATES  83 

of  the  zvoiiieii  at  all,  but  uuly  a  two-angel  vision  of  Mary  alone.  The 
whole  trouble  is  in  locating  the  women's  two  visions  of  the  first  three 
Gospels  into  harmony  with  Mary's  vision  in  John.  So  that  the  two 
great  questions  are.  with  the  errors  concerning  them: — 

I.  Where  in  this  account  of  John  does  the  one-angel  vision  of  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  belong  ? 

Error  i,  putting  the  one-angel  vision  too  early;  error  z,  putting  it 
hio  laic:  error  3,  having  no  one-angel  vision  at  all  till  the  close. 

II.  Where  does  the  two-angel  vision  of  Luke  belong  ? 

Error  4,  putting  the  two-angel  vision  too  late;  error  5,  putting  it  too 
early;  error  6.  Diixim:;  together  the  one-angel  and  the  two-angel  \-ision. 

One-aiigel   Msion. 

I.  Where  does  the  one-angel  vision  of  Matthew  and  Mark  belong? 
Here  three  erroi^s  are  committed: — 

Error  1.  Putting  the  one-angel  vision  too  early,  that  is,  before 
Mary  ran  to  tell  Peter  (in  John  ver.  i,  at  our  period  i).  This  is  the 
error  of  Calmet  and  White,  of  Guyse  and  Clarke;  and  it  is  open  to 
these  objections:  (i.)  It  does  not  comport  with  Mary's  meagre  seeing, 
as  in  John,  ver.  i;  nor  with  her  meagre  tidings  to  Peter  (Meyer),  as  in 
ver.  z.  Nor  would  she  have  said  to  him  and  afterwards  to  Jesus,  "  we 
know  not  where  they  have  laid  "  our  missing  Lord,  if  she  had  already 
received  angelic  assurance  that  He  was  risen.  (2.)  This  view  leaves 
the  women  unaccounted  for,  during  all  Mary's  flight  and  Peter's  visit 
to  the  tomb,  or  even  longer.  (3.)  As  Calmet  and  White  have  both  the 
women's  visions  here  mixed  together,  they  thus  incur  all  the  additional 
objections  of  that  view,  as  seen  directly  (at  error  6). 

Error  2.  Putting  the  one-angel  vision  too  late,  that  is,  not  until 
after  Peter  and  John  left  the  tomb  (in  ver.  10,  at  our  period  4;  see  Dodd- 
ridge). This  might  seem  a  plausible  plan  between  other  exti"emes;  but 
it  is  liable  to  these  objections:  (i)  It  leaves  the  women  still  unaccounted 
for,  during  all  Mary's  flight  and  Peter's  visit  (John  ver.  2-10,  periods  2 
and  3).  Or,  if  to  obviate  this  Doddridge  difficulty  we  adopt  the 
amendment  of  President  Edwards,  Olshausen,  Ebrard,  and  even 
Meyer,  not  having  the  women  start  for  the  tomb  till  some  time  after 
Mary, — then  (2)  not  only  does  this  contradict  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke  (ver.  i),  that  they  all  started  together  very  early;  but  it  is  also 
difficult  to  think  of  Mary,  a  lone  female,  going  off  to  visit  a  sepulchre 
"while  it  was  yet  dark,"'  without  any  company, — especially  as  in  her 
report  of  it  she  says  "  we"  (John,  ver.  2). 

Error  ^.  Having  no  one-angel  vision  till  after  Mary's  visit  (all  be- 
ing left  till  John  ver.  18,  at  period  7).  This  is  the  error  of  Doddridge 
(with  West)  and  President  Edwards;  and  it  is  liable  to  these  objec- 
tions: (i.)  It  leaves  the  women  unaccounted  for  from  their  arrival  (ver. 
i)  through  all  Mary's  adventures  (John  ver.  1-18,  period  1-7).  Dodd- 
ridge and  Dr.  Clark  are  forced  to  say  that  they  must  have  "fled  to 
some  retired  ])lace  astounded  !" — a  statement  certainly  astounding. 
President  Edwards  delays  even  the  coming  of  the  women  till  this  latest 
])oint,  by  which  means  Mary  does  not  join  them  at  all,  contrary  to 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  (ver.  i),  who  all  put  them  with  her,  as  start- 
ing very  early  in  the  morning,  as  it  began  to  dawn.  (2.)  This  view 
violates  the  order  in  Mark  (ver.  g),  which  puts  Mary's  sight  of  Jesus  as 


84  NEW    TEST.    PERIOD    G 

after  a  vision  of  the  women.  (3.)  This  view  compels  the  putting  of  the 
women's  two-angel  vision  also  at  this  late  point,  with  all  the  objec- 
tions attending  that  tiiLxed  method,  as  directly  seen  (at  error  6;  also 
error  4). 

Since,  therefore,  we  have  seen  the  place  of  the  first  angel-vision  to 
be  too  late  after  the  visit  of  Peter  and  John  to  the  tomb,  and  too  early 
before  Mar}'  ran  to  them  from  the  tomb, — it  follows  that  this  first 
angel-vision  belongs  truly  between  those  two  points,  namely,  in  the  in- 
terim between  Mary's  leaving  the  tomb  and  Peter's  reaching  it,  (that  is, 
in  period  2).  Luke  (ver.  12)  puts  Peter's  startingfor  the  tomb  as  "then," 
when  an  angel-vision  had  but  just  transpired.  According  to  this, 
Mary,  first  coming  to  the  tomb,  and  finding  it"open  and  empty,  runs  off 
at  once  to  tell  Peter  and  John;  while  the  rest  of  the  women  stopping 
behind  are  addressed  by  an  angel  inside,  (none  but  the  keepers  having 
seen  the  angel  outside,  Matthew  ver.  2-4),  contrary  to  Meyer;  after 
which  Peter  and  John  come  running  up;  and  afterwards  Mary  returns 
with  women  to  another  vision  of  angels. 

§  114.  This  more  correct  view  of  the  matter,  advanced  by  Scott  in 
his  Commentary,  1788,  and  by  White  in  his  Diatessaron,  1799,  as  well 
as  McKnight,  has  latterly  been  adopted  by  Robinson,  in  his  English 
and  Greek  Harmonies;  by  Gardiner  in  his  Greek  Harmony;  by  Brown 
in  the  new  British  Commentary;  by  Olshausen,  and  Barnes,  and 
Lange,  and  Meyer,  in  their  Commentaries;  and  by  Haley,  Ebrard, 
Kitto,  etc.  And  it  may  now  be  considered  as  settled  that  this  is  the 
true  arrangement  for  the  first  or  one-angel  vision. 

Two-angel   Vision. 

n.  Where  does  the  two-angel  vision  of  Luke  belong  ?  Here  also 
three  errors  are  committed: — 

Error  j^.  Putting  the  two-angel  vision  too  late,  that  is,  after  Mary's 
interview  with  Jesus  (at  John  ver.  18,  in  period  7).  This  is  the  error  of 
Doddridge,  with  West,  and  Guyse,  of  President  Edwards,  and  Scott, 
and  White,  and  Lange,  and  it  is  open  to  these  objections:  (i.)  It 
allows  no  tidings  from  luomen  about  a  vision  of  angels  only  (more  than 
one  without  Christ  seen)  to  come  to  the  disciples,  before  the  two 
started  for  Emmaus,  and  before  Mary  came  telling  of  Jesus  seen  ;  as 
req^uired  by  Luke  (ver.  22,  23);  noted  by  Godet.  (2.)  After  their  first 
visit  the  women  fled  (Matthew  and  Mark,  ver.  8);  and  there  is  in  this  ar- 
rangement no  accounting  for  their  being  back  (especially  so  soon)  and 
after  Mary  had  left  a  second  time.  Doddridge  and  Edwards  try 
to  escape  this  objection  by  mixing  both  visions  of  the  women  (thus  de- 
layed) into  one,  and  so  having  no  return  of  women  after  a  flight.  But 
they  thus  fall  into  all  the  other  difficulties  of  this  mixed  method  (at 
error  6,  also  3). 

Error  5.  Putting  the  two-angel  vision  too  early,  that  is,  before 
Mary's  return  to  the  tomb.  Thus  Calmet,  and  White,  and  even  Godet 
(seemingly),  put  the  two-angel  vision,  mixed  with  the  one-angel  vision, 
as  all  seen  by  Mary  before  her  running  to  tell  Peter.  They  thus  not 
only  fall  into  the  other  objections  (given  at  errors  i  and  6),  but  they 
add  these:  (i.)  This  leaves  the  women  unaccounted  for  from  Mary's 
leaving  the  tomb  until  all  her  proceedings  are  through  (that  is,  all  the 
six  periods  after  John  ver.  i,  on  to  18);  when  it//^;- appearing  to  Mary 
(Mark,  ver.  9),  Jesus  met  tJieni  as  they  went  from  the  tomb  (Matthew, 
ver.  9),  although  (according  to  this  view)  they  left  there  with  Mary  at  the 
first!  (2.)  This  makes  Mary  have  the  two-angel  vision  twice  over, 
which  certainlv  cannot  be. 


VARIOUS    DATES  09 

We  can  not  avoid  the  difficulty  by  putting  the  one-angel  vision 
before  Mary's  leaving  the  tomb,  and  the  two-angel  vision  after  she  had 
left.  This  would  set  the  two  visions  /;/  inunediate  succession,  but  (not 
exactly  mixing  them)  would  make  actually  three  angel-visions  instead 
of  two.  This  is  an  impossible  view;  because  objection  (i)  still  remains 
in  large  part,  and  objection  (2)  of  the  previous  error  4  is  added;  but 
especially  a  new  objection  (3)  comes  in,  viz. :  that  after  fleeing  in  fear 
from  an  angel-vision,  the  saine  7vomeu  would  not  inuiiediately  enter 
again  to  a  new  vision  of  nui/tiplied  SLngels.  Morison,  Eddy,  and  even 
Godet  may  seem  as  if  tending  to  this  view.  But  certainly  Robinson, 
Gardiner,  Olshausen,  Meyer,  and  Barnes  mix  up  the  two  visions  as 
both  one  and  the  same,  occurring  just  after  Mary  ran  from  the  tomb — 
the  proper  place  of  the  one-angel  vision  only.  This  still  leaves  the 
objection  (i)  just  given,  with  all  the  objections  against  mixing  the  two 
visions.     Which  latter  we  now  proceed  to  give: — 

Error  6,  the  most  common  of  all.  Mixing  together  the  one-angel 
and  the  two-angel  visions,  as  if  thev  were  the  same.  This  is  the  error 
of  Doddridge,  Edwards,  Calmet,  White,  Macknight,  Robinson,  Gardi- 
ner, Godet,  Meyer,  Olshausen,  Barnes,  Morison,  Elliott,  and  Eddy; 
and  indeed  of  nearly  all  the  writers  we  have  consulted.  We  can 
except  only  Guyse,  West,*  Scott,  White,  and  Lange;  all  but  the  first  of 
whom  have  the  second  women's  vision  at  pei'iod  7,  after  Mary's  sight 
of  Jesus  (as  at  error  4),  making  three  angel-visions,  instead  of  two  as 
most  reckon.  Scott,  White,  and  Lange  have  the  first  vision  correctly 
at  period  z\  and  Guyse  (cited  in  Doddridge)  has  two  visions  at  our 
periods  i  and  4. 

I  115.     Mixing  THE  Two  Visions 

Is  exposed  to  the  following  grave  objections:  (i.)  The  sight  of  tii'o  angels 
and  of  one  angei  only  do  not  harmonize  as  the  same  event.  At  the 
first  visit  to  the  tomb  one  angel  alone  sat  inside  the  tomb  (Mark,  ver.  5), 
one  angel  having  left  the  outside  (Matthew  ver.  2-5);  but  at  the  second 
visit  two  angels  stood  and  spoke  (Luke,  ver.  3,  4),  arising  in  sight  from 
a  reclining  posture.  (See  Haley  and  Macknight;  John,  ver.  11.)  (2.) 
The  message  of  the  two  angels  was  quite  different  from  that  of  the  one 
angel,  as  shown  by  Godet.  (Compare  Luke  and  Mark,  ver.  6-8.  Luke 
mixes  the  two.)  The  one  angel  alarmed  them  (flying  with  fear)  by 
saying,  "Why  seek  ye  the  living  among  the  dead?  He  is  not 
here,  but  is  risen — see  where  he  laid — go  tell — and  meet  him  in  Gali- 
lee." The  two  angels  soothed  them  (retiring  calmly)  by  tenderly 
inquiring  of  Mary,  "Woman,  why  weepest  thou?"  and  then  (seem- 
ingly in  view  of  her  answer)  continuously  reminding  them  all  how  Jesus 
himself  had  foretold  these  very  scenes  of  death  and  resurrection.  (3.) 
The  mixed  view  necessitates /7<;'<?  separate  visions  of  the /vc'^' angels,  one 
of  them  with  Mary  all  alone,  which  is  not  likely;  so  that  Kitto  entirely 
ignores  one  of  the  two.  (4.)  Mary  did  return  to  a  later  two-angel 
vision,   after  leaving  the  tomb  (John,  ver.   2,    11);  and  others  of  the 


*  The  Resurrection  of  Christ.  B3'  Gilbert  West,  Esq.  London, 
1747.  8vo.  Highly  commended  in  Home's  Introd.  Bib.  Ind.,  p.  61. 
Doddridge  in  his  Expositor  cites  and  approves  West;  and  he  is  nearly 
followed  by  Towson.  1793,  and  by  White's  Diatessaron,  1799  (says 
Home  as  alcove).     With  the  last  named,  Clarke  nearly  agrees. 


00  NEW    TEST.     PEKIOD    G 

women  would  be  likely  to  meet  her,  and  return  also  (as  Mackuight 
shows),  they  thus  seeing  the  two  angels  when  she  did,  not  when, 
before,  they  had  seen  but  one.  (5.)  If  they  did  not  thus,  like  Mary, 
return  to  the  tomb  after  leaving  it,  what  could  thej-  be  about  ni  all  the 
interval  of  John  (ver.  2-18,  pei'iod  2-7)?— until  after  Mary's  second  visit 
and  her  interview  with  angels  and  with  Jesus — not  until  af/c'r  which 
did  He  appear  to  ///rw  also,  "  as  they  went  "  fleeing  from  the  tomb. 
This  can  not  mean  their  fleeing  at  first  before  even  Peter  was  there, 
when  even  Mai'y  had  not  seen  Him;  but  it  must  teach  (as  Barnes 
insists)  that  they  "  went  "  away  a  second  time. 

Mark  (ver.  2)  indicates  two  arrivals  at  the  tomb,  mixed  in  the  account 
— the  one  "  very  early  "  (Matthew,  "  as  it  began  to  dawn  ");  the  other, 
"at  the  rising  of  the  sun."  (See  Meyer.)  Also  ver.  8  indicates  that 
after  the  first  visit  the  women  /;/  fear  reported  nothing;  whereas,  the 
mixed  account  of  Luke  (ver.  9)  gives  their  /Vy/ and  their  announcement 
after  the  second  visit, — which  Gardiner  himself  rightly  shows  must  be 
different  affairs.  Doddridge,  West,  Scott,  Lange,  Haley,  and  Godet 
suggest  a  .s-i'Y<?;/^;'^('/ of  women  coming  out — Joanna,  etc.  (Luke,  ver.  10). 
Brown,  in  the  British  Commentary  (at  Mark,  ver.  g),  suggests  a  re/in'Ji 
of  women  with  Mary;  Barnes  has  them  back  without  her;  but  neither 
has  them  see  angels.     What  could  they  be  about  ? 

Robinson,  Olshausen,  and  others,  to  meet  the  difficulty  (jf  Mark 
(ver.  g)  in  their  mixed  method  without  women  again  at  the  tomb,  ha\e  to 
interpret  the  "first"  appearing  of  Jesus  to  Mary  as  meaning,  not  the 
first  appearing  of  all,  before  his  appearing  to  the  women,  but  onl}-  the 
first-named  by  Mark! — a  very  untenable  idea.  But  they  thus,  by  hav- 
ing an  earlier  appearing  of  Christ  to  the  women,  fall  into  the  greater 
absurdity  of  having  no  party  of  women  come  telling  of  angels  alone 
seen  (with  Christ  not  yet  reported  as  seen),  so  late  as  the  start  to 
Emmaus,  as  required  by  Luke  (ver.  22,  23).  To  Kitto  this  is  inexplic- 
able; but  Doddridge,  Lightfoot,  Macknight,  and  Lange  try  to  meet 
ths  difficulty  by  denying  the  literal  iritth  of  Matthew  (ver.  9),  that  Jesus 
met  women  as  they  returned  from  the  tomb.  To  such  straits  are 
expositors  reduced  to  get  along  witli  their  mixing  of  the  two-angel  with 
the  one-angel  vision. 

?ii6.     The  Correct  View. 

Now,  then,  since  we  have  found  that  the  women's  two  visions  can 
not  be  mixed,  and  that  before  Mary's  vision  is  too  early  for  their  sec- 
ond vision,  and  after  her  vision  is  too  late — therefore,  we  ha\e  to 
regard  the  two-angel  visio7t  of  the  women  as  closely  allied  with  the  two- 
angel  insion  of  Mary  herself.  Doddridge  does  in  fact  make  the  women 
enter  the  tomb  while  Mary,  near  by  but  unseen,  is  conversing  with 
Jesus.  Rather,  we  saj',  they  came  out  of  the  tomb,  while  she,  unseen 
by  some  of  them,  was  thus  convei-sing;  so  that  some  ran  to  tell  of  the 
angels  seen,  while  others  lingering  sa7u  fesits  with  Mary,  and  they  with 
her  afterwards  brought  this  greater  news. 

This  separation  and  double  report  of  the  women  upon  going  away 
is  testified  to  by  Gardiner,  Barnes,  and  other  harmonists.  Godet  even 
tells  us  that  the  women's  sight  of  Jesus  in  Matthew  (ver.  9),  is  the  same 


NAKIOl'S    OAIHS  8( 

as  Mary's  si^lit  of  him  in  Mark  (ver.  9),  John  (ver.  171:  in  c(jnfirmation  of 
which  he  bids  us  compare  "  embraced  his  feet,"  and  "  tell  my  breth- 
ren," in  the  one  account,  with  "touch  me  not,"  and  "  go  to  my  breth- 
ren," in  the  other.  Lange  says:  "The  special  experience  of  Mary 
[in  seeeing  Jesus]  is  [at  Mark,  ver.  9]  /.'/r^r/^^rcjAvAvith  the  vision  of  the 
other  women."  Yes!  the  things  were  indeed  "  incoqiorated  "  together; 
for  they  are  but  parts  of  a  single  scene. 

No  view  but  this  will  harmonize  Matthew  (ver.  9)  with  John  (ver.  17) 
and  Mark  (ver.  9).  The  fact,  so  inexplicable  to  Kitto  and  others,  that 
the  ivomen  "  held  Jesus  by  the  feet,"  while  yet  he  required  of  Mary 
"touch  me  not,"  is  not  explainable  except  in  this  view  of  a  mingled 
scene.  For  they  could  have  "  held  him  by  the  feet  "  only  just  before 
his  charge  "  touch  me  not."  Matthew  (ver.  g)  shows  why  Jesus  spoke 
as  in  John  (ver.  17).  That  the  women  passed  from  the  tomb  just  as  Mary 
recognized  the  Saviour,  appears  from  a  trifling  yet  very  suggestive 
])hrase,  noted  by  Meyer, — as  Jesus  said  "  Mary  !  "  she  "  turned  lujself 
and  saith  unto  him,  '  Rabboni,'  "  showing  that  she  had  tjo'tifd  aj-oiind, 
— I  would  say,  at  the  rush  of  women.  Did  Providence  leave  t/ii's  little 
key  (unnoticed  so  long  till  Meyer)  on  purpose  no'-iv  at  last  to  unlock  this 
harmony  of  the  resurrection  story? 

Of  all  the  expositions  to  be  found,  the  ])lan  of  Scott,  White,  West, 
and  Lange  alone  seems  to  approach  our  view,  ni  the  separate  locating 
of  the  one-angel  and  the  two-angel  vision.  They  have  the  first  vision 
rightly  in  Mary's  absence  from  the  tomb;  but  they  put  the  second  after 
Mary's  vision  of  angels,  not  in  conjunction  with  it,  as  we  alone  do. 
Moreover,  Lange  strangely  puts  Matthew's  one-angel  vision  as  coinci- 
dent with  Luke's  two-angel  vision;  somewhat  as  Guyse  (cited  in  Dodd- 
ridge), while  rightly  making  two  angel-visions,  and  even  seeming  to 
make  one  of  them  coincident  with  Mary's,  yet  strangely  mixes  up  the 
accounts  of  them. 

The  now  current  view  of  most  writers  differs  from  ours  chiefly  in 
this:  that  it  combines  the  women's  sight  of  two  angels  with ///<^  r';/!?- 
atigel  7nsion,  instead  of  combining  it  with  Mary's  sight  of  t7vo  angels  (as 
is  here  done).  Several  writers  come  very  near,  but  no  one  quite  seizes 
this  determining  idea. 

'i  117.  According  to  the  improved  arrangement  we  have  now 
established,  the  events  at  period  4  proceed  as  follows: — 

Mary  Magdalene,  after  starting  out  Peter  and  John,  on  her  way  back 
to  the  tomb  takes  with  her  some  women  not  before  starting  ("Joanna 
and  other  women," — Luke,  ver.  i,  10:  "several  others,"  Meyer, — 
"bringing  the  spices."  not  named  at  the  ])revious  coming, — Mark,  Mat- 
thew, John,  ver.  i),  with  other  returning  women,  perhaps,  whom  she 
meets  (Mark  ver.  8).  Being  arrived  there  the  women  (mostly  a  new  set) 
enter  tlie  tomb:  while  Mary  stands  in  the  doorway  stooping  down,  aiul 


so  NEW    TEST.     PERIOD    G 

sees  "two  angels  sitting"  (John,  ver.  ii,  12).  Tlie  angels  speak  to 
Mary  weeping  in  the  doorway,  and  she  answers  them  (ver.  13,  14). 
As  the  angels  rise  in  presence  of  the  women,  just  then  Mary  hears  a 
footfall  without,  and  turning  she  sees  a  stranger  off  a  little  one  side. 
So  stepping  away  from  the  tomb  to  ask  him  for  help  she,  after  a  little 
conversation,  discovers  that  it  is  Jesus  hin\self  whom  she  is  addressing. 

Meanwhile,  the  women  in  the  tomb  who,  while  Mary  was  addressed 
by  the  angels,  were  bowing  down  their  faces  to  the  earth  in  fear  (Luke, 
vei".  5),  as  soon  as  Mary  turned  away  were  themselves  addressed  by  the 
angels  (now  arisen  plainly  in  view);  whom  they  did  not  answer,  as  Mary 
had  done  (ver.  5-8), — no  question  being  asked.  But  in  timid  joy  (Mat- 
thew, ver.  8)  over  the  comforting  reminder  of  the  angels,  '  'they  returned 
from  the  sepulchre  "  (Luke,  ver.  9).  Some  of  them  hurry  off  for  the 
city,  to  tell  of  ange/s  seen  (Luke,  ver.  22,  23);  while  others,  turning  a 
little  one  side,  run  directlj-  upon  Mary  falking  ivitJi  Jcsits  /liiiisf/f, — 
just  as  she  "tuiTied  herself"  from  looking  at  them  as  they  came  up, 
and  discovering  who  he  was  exclaimed,  "  Rabboni— Master  !  "  As  he 
salutes  them  all,  they  all  fall  in  worship  and  embrace  his  feet  (Mat- 
thew, ver.  10).  Upon  which  he  says  to  them  all  (including  Mary), 
"  Touch  me  not  .  .  .  but  go  to  my  brethren  "  (John,  ver.  17);  "  Be  not 
afraid:  go  tell  my  brethren"  (Matthew,  ver.  10). 

They  all  start  to  go:  but  are  met  by  the  watchmen  (ver.  11),  who  are 
preparing  for  an  overhauling  of  the  matter  before  the  council;  and  being 
questioned  and  detained  (perhaps)  as  witnesses,  they  do  not  reach  the 
disciples  with  their  message  from  Jesus  till  later  in  the  day  (Luke,  ver. 
9,  10;  Mark,  ver.  10;  John,  ver.  18).  Meanwhile,  the  two  disciples  have 
started  for  Emmaus,  not  knowing  that  Jesus  himself  has  been  seen 
(Luke,  ver.  22,  23).  Peter's  sight  of  Jesus  does  not  come  in  till  now, 
later  in  the  day  (ver.  33,  34). 

Thus  is  the  whole  history  beautifully  harmoni/ed,  and  made  simple 
and  consistent.  And  this  is  done  by  the  now  accepted  method  of  put- 
ting the  first-angel  vision  during  Mary's  absence  from  the  tomb, 
together  with  this  our  newly-arranged  method,  of  putting  the  two-angel 
vision  afterward  on  tlie  return  of  Mary,  with  her  and  the  women  all 
present  in  it,  as  one  single  two-angel  vision. 

'i  118.     A  Summary  ARcrMENi-, 

to  show  that  Christ's  appearing  to  Mary  and  to  the  other  women  was 
all  really  in  one  continuous  event,  as  suggested  by  Godet : — 

Three  Evangelists  have  a  mention  of  a  woman-sight  of  Jesus,  and 
each  has  huf  one  sucii  account  ;  Mark  and  John  only  saying  that  it 
occurred  to  Mary  Magdalene,  but  Matthew  saying  that  it  occurred  to 
the  vjomen  \iVo\mscuons\y,  iitc/uding A fciry  (\ev.  1,9);"  .  .  .  came 
Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other  Mary     .     .     .     and  as  t/tty  went  Jesus 


VARIOUS    DATES  89 

met  themy  Therefore,  as  each  Evangelist  has  but  one  such  event,  and 
as  by  Matthew  the  plural  case  is  made  to-inchtde  the  singular,  it  is  plain 
that  there  were  not  two  separate  events  to  be  distinguished  by  anyone 
of  the  writers,  but  a  single  affair,  to  be  told  in  full  or  in  part  by  the 
writers,  according  as  it  was  impressed  on  the  mind  of  each.  Nor  does 
the  word  "first"  (at  Mark,  ver.  9)  make  Mary's  meeting  of  Jesus  entirely 
separate  from  that  of  the  women,  but  only  the  first  step  in  it.  Mary 
did  "first"  see  Jesus,  as  there  stated;  but  she  was  not  alone  in  seeing 
him,  for  "  the  other  Mary  "  joined  her  in  it  (Matthew,  ver.  i,  9),  and 
perhaps  others  too.  Matthew  expressly  gives  Mary  Magdalene's 
sight  of  Jesus  and  the  women's  sight  of  Jesus  as  but  one  whole  event, 
while  Mark  and  John  only  state  Mary's  part  in  it  as  commencing 
"first." 

There  was  a  particular  reason  why  John  remembered  Mary's  vision 
and  sight  of  Jesus  more  than  that  of  the  other  women,  all  mention  of 
which  he  entirely  omits.  It  was  she  who  came  running  to  liitn  and 
Peter,  and  first  startled  them  with  tidings  from  the  tomb,  which  sent 
them  hurrying  thither  themselves.  (This  reason  Tholuck  notes.)  For 
the  same  i^eason.  Peter  also  remembered  chiefly  Mary's  part  in  the  see- 
ing of  Jesus;  and  telling  it  to  his  amanuensis,  Mark,  he  thus  secured 
the  insertion  in  that  Gospel  also,  without  mention  of  the  other  women. 
ISut  Matthew,  who  had  no  such  personal  reason  to  fasten  Mary  indeli- 
bly in  mind,  has  told  the  fact  in  its  general  form,  "  Jesus  met  them," 
— the  women.  And  Luke,  having  onl)'  Paul's  tuition,  who  was  not 
present  to  be  thrilled  by  the  women  's  story  of  seeing  Jesus  alive,  says 
nothing  about  it;  and  also  mixes  up  the  visions. 

I  need  only  say,  in  closing,  that  we  find  in  this  Harmony  of  the  Res- 
urrection (so  happily  adjusted  at  last)  a  wonderful  confirmation  of  the 
inspired  accurac)'  of  the  Evangelists.  Substantial  agi"eement,  with 
varied  selection  of  details,  especially  when  that  agreement  is  seen  only 
by  careful  sifting  of  those  details, — this  is  the  very  height  of  corrobo- 
ration to  the  testimony  of  independent  witnesses.  The  cavils  of  infi- 
dels upon  this  very  point  of  alleged  discrepancy  in  the  narrations  are 
here  met  by  a  demonstration  of  unpremeditated  concurrence  that  sets 
all  objection  at  rest. 

At  the  same  time,  the  dates  at  which  the  several  Gospels  were 
written,  as  well  as  the  identitj'  of  their  authors,  I'eceive  here  a  striking 
illustration.  The  mention  of  Mary  Magdalene,  and  of  the  personal 
meeting  with  Jesus  that  first-day  morning,  is  in  each  writing  just  what 
the  authorship  calls  for,  as  already  seen.  The  story  of  the  first  three 
Evangelists,  evidently  unadjusted  by  any  collusion,  could  hardly  be  put 
together  into  harmony;  until  the  fourth  Gospel  comes  in  at  a  later  date, 
and  without  any  seeming  reference  to  the  previous  acccunts,  by  means 
of  new  details  personally  known  by  John,  furnishes  a  key  which  in 
consecutive  order  reconciles  together  the  whole  seeminglj'  diverse 
account. 

How  beautiful,  how  grand,  is  the   Harmony  of  Divine  Revelation  ! 


Note. — The  following  harmony  has  been  arranged  as  a  Sacred  Drama  or  Bible 
Reading  exhibited  by  a  Sunday  School  as  an  Easter  Service  ;  bein({  set  forth  by  five  male 
and  five  female  readers,  personating  the  individuals  concerned  in  the  Gospel  narrative. 


90 


Harmony  of  Christ's 


MATTHEW    XXVIII. 

MARK    XVI. 

I.UKE    XXIV. 

1  In  tlie  end  of  the  sabbath,  as 
it  began  to  dawn  toward  the  first 
dny  of  the  week,  came  Mary  Mag- 
dalene and  the  other  Mary  to  see 
the  sepulchre. 

2  And,  behold,   there    was    a 
great  earthquake:    for  the  angel 
of    the    Lord     descended     from 
heaven,    and    came    and    rolled 
back  the   stone   from    the  door, 
and  sat  upon  it. 

3  His   countenance   was    like 
lightning,  and  his  raiment  white 
as  snow. 

4  And    for    fear    of    him     the 
keepers  did  shake,  and    became 
as  dead  iiu-ti. 

1  And   when   the  sabbath  was 
past,  Mary  Magdalene,  and  Mary 
the  ;«y/A<'rofJames,  and  Salome, 
had    bought   sweet    spices,    that 
they  might  come  and  anoint  him. 

2  And  very  early  in   the  morn- 
ing,   the    first   day   of    the  week 
they    came   unto   the   sepulchre 
(at  the  rising  of  the  sun). 

3  And  they  said   among   them- 
selves. Who    shall  roll  us  away 
the  stone   from  the  door  of  the 
sepulchre  ? 

4  And  when  they  looked,  they 
saw   that    the    stone    was  rolled 
away;  for  it  was  very  great. 

1  Now  upon  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  very  early  in  the 
morning,  they  came  unto  the 
sepulchre, bringing  the  spices 
which  thev  had  prepared, 
and  certain  otheis  with  them. 

2  And  they  found  the  stone 
rolled  awav  from  the  sepul- 
chre. 

5  And  the  angel  answered  and 
said  unto  the  women.   Fear  not 
ye,  for  I  know  that  ye  seek  Jesus, 
which  was  crucified. 

6  He    is   not   here:    for    he    is 
risen,  as  lie  said.     Come,  see  the 
place  where  the  Lord  lay. 

7  And  go  quickly,  and   tell  his 
disciples  that  he  is  risen  from  the 
dead;  and,  behold,  he  goeth  be- 
fore you  into  Galilee:  there  shall 
yeseehim:lo,    I   have  told  you. 

8  And    they   departed  quickly 
from  the  sepulchre  with  fear  and 
great  joy;  and   did   run   to  bring 
his  disciples  word. 

5  And  entering  into  the  sepul- 
chre, they  saw  a  young  man  sit- 
ting on  the  right  side,  clothed  in 
a  long  white  garment;   and    they 
were  affrighted. 

6  And  he  saith  unto  them,   Be 
not  affrighted  :  ye  seek  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,    which  was  crucified  ; 
lie  is  risen;   he  is  not   here;   be- 
hold the  place   where   they  laid 
him. 

7  But   go    your   way,    tell  his 
disciples  and  Peter  that  he  goeth 
before  you   into   Galilee:   there 
shall  ye  see  him,  as  he  said  unto 
you. 

8  And  they   went  out  quickly, 
and  tied  from  the  sepulchre;  for 
they  trembled  and  were  amazed  : 
neither  said  they  anything  to  any 
man:  for  they  were  afraid. 

(3  And  they  entered  in,  and 
...  5  \it  ^uas\  said  unto  them, 
Why  seek  ye  the  living  among 
the  dead?  6  He  is  not  here, 
but  is  risen  :  remember  how 
he  spake  unto  you  when  he 
was  yet  in  Galilee.  .   .   . 

9  .^nd  \they\  returned  from 
the  sepulchre.) 

(Omitted.) 

[Omitted.) 

■ 

12  Then  arose  Peter,  and 
run  unto  the  sepulchre;  and 
stooping  down,  he  beheld  the 
linen  clothes  laid  by  them- 
selves, and  departed,  won- 
dering in  himself  at  that 
which  was  come  to  pass. 

24  And  certain  of  them 
which  were  with  us  went  to 
the  sepulchre,  and  found  // 
even  so  as  the  women  had 
said :  but  him  they  saw  not. 

[Uike  'combine's  tlie  second 
angel-vision  after  tlii.':  period 
with  the  one  he/ore.  ] 

Rp:siikkhction. 


JOHN    XX.    (key). 


I  The  first  liny  of  the  week  coin- 
eth  Mary  Magdalene  early,  when  it 
was  yet  dark,  unto  the  sepulchre, 
«ild  seeth  the  stone  taken  away 
from  the  sepulchre. 


At  dawn  there  was  an  earthquake,  and 
the  stone  was  rolled  away  by  an  angel. 

Mary  Magdalene  comes  (the  other  Mary 
and- Salome  following  her),  and  they  find 
the  stone  rolled  away.  Thinking  the  tomb 
robbed,    and    not   waiting    for   the    others 


2  Then   she  runneth,  and  cometh  Mary   runs   off    to    Peter    and    John,    and 

to    Simon    Peter,   and   to  the  otherL^g    ^^^^^  jq,.  ,1,^  ,o„,b. 

djsciple,    whom     Jesus    loved,    and      ,,  ,  .,       ,         ,  ,,,.,,., 

aaith   unto   them.    They  have  taken]     Meanwhile,  the  other  women  (left  behind 

away  the  Lord  out  of  the  sepulchre, [by  Mary)  venture  into  the  tomb,  and  there 

Hid  him'"'^'''   "°'  '^''"'"'   ''"'^'  ''^^'^llisten  toa  single  angel  (the   one   who  had 

sat  on  the  stone).     He  assures  them  of  Je. 

sus'  resurrection,  and  sends  them  oft  with 

a  message  to  the  disciple>. 


3  Peter  therefore  went  forth,  and 
that  other  disciple,  and  came  to  the 
sepulchre. 

4  So  they  ran  both  together ;  and 
the  other  disciple  did  outrun  Peter, 
and  came  first  to  the  sepulchre. 

5  And  he  stooping  down,  and  look- 
ing in,  saw  the  linen  clothes  lying: 
yet  went  he  not  in. 

6  Then  cometh  Simon  Peter  fol- 
lowing him,  and  went  into  the  sepul-, 
chre,  and  seeth  the  linen  clothes  lie,IJ°3nna-  and  other  women  met  by  the  way 


ist  after  their  leaving,  John  arrive 
the  tomb. 

Peter  next  comes  up,  and  goes  in.    They 
nd  no  body  of  Jesus,  and   no  angel  ap 
pears.      But   they    see    the    grave-clothes 
lying.     Presently  they  return  home. 

Meanwhile,  Mary   Magdelene  is  on  liei 
way   back   to   the   tomb,   taking   with   hei 


7  And  the  napkin  that  was  about 
his  head,  not  lying  with  the  linen 
clothes,  but  wrapped  together  in  a 
place  by  itself. 

8  Then  went  in  also  that  other  dis- 
ciple, which  came  first  to  the  sepul- 
chre, and  he  saw,  and  believed. 

9  For  as  yet  they  knew  not  the 
Scripture,  that  he  must  rise  again 
from  the  dead. 

10  Then  the  disciples  went  away 
again  unto  their  own  home. 


(at 


rise). 


Harmony  of  Christ's 


MATTHEW    XXVIII. 


LUKE  XXIV. 


{Mary,  ivitJi  Joanna  and 
»ilters,  returns  to  the  sepnl 
chre.) 


(2  .  .  .  They  came  unto 
the  sepulchre  at  the  rising  of 
the  sun.) 


3  And  they  entered  in,  and  found 
not  the  body  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

4  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  they  were 
much  perplexed  thereabout,  behold, 
two  men  stood  by  them  in  shining 
garments  : 


5  And    as   they   were    afraid,    and 
bowed  down  t/ieir  faces  to  the  earth, 


( IVaiiten  in  the  tomb.) 


.rhen     /(': 
the  first  day  of 


9  N 
risen   early 

the  week,  he  appeared  first 
to'  Mary    Magdalene,   out  of 
whom  he  had  cast  seven  de 
ils. 


they   said    unto    them.    Why 
seek  ye  the  living  among  the  dead?. 

6  He  is  not  here,  but  is  risen:  re- 
member how  he  spake  unto  you 
when  he  was  yet  in  Galilee, 

7  Saying,  The  Son  of  Man  must 
be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  sinful 
men,  and  be  crucified,  and  the  third 
day  rise  again. 

8  And  they  remembered  his  words, 

9  And  returned  from  the  sepul- 
chre. 


9  And  as  they  went  to  tell 
his  disciples,  behold,  Jesus 
met  them,  saying.  All  hail. 
And  they  came  and  held  him 
by  the  feet,  and  worshipped 
him. 

10  Then  said  Jesus  unto 
them,  Be  not  afraid:  go  tell 
my  brethren  that  they  go  in- 
to Galilee,  and  there  shall 
they  see  me. 


(  Tjiut  sets  of  iiomen . 


22  Yea,  and  certain  women  also  of 
our  company  made  us  astonished, 
which  were  early  at  the  sepulchre  ; 

23  And  when  they  found  not  his 
body,  they  came,  saying,  that  they 
had  also  seen  a  vision  of  angels, 
which  said  that  he  was  alive. 


(13  And,  behold,  two  of  them  went 
that  same  day  to  a  village  called 
Emmaus.     /'cr.  22,  23.) 


11  Now  when  they  were 
going,  behold,  some  of  the 
watch  came  into  the  city, 
and  shewed  unto  the  chief 
priests  all  the  things  that 
were  done. 

12  And  when  they  were  as- 
sembled with  the  elders,  and 
had  taken  counsel,  they  gave 
large  money  unto  the  sol- 
diers. 


10  ^«</she  went  and  told 
them  thathad  been  with  him, 
as  they  mourned  and  wept. 

11  And  they,  when  they 
had  heard  that  he  was  alive, 
and  had  been  seen  of  her, 
believed  not. 


12  After  that  he  appeared 
|in  another  form  unto  two  of 
them,  as  they  walked,  and 
went  into  the  country. 


9  .  .  .  They  returned  from  the  sep- 
ulchre, and  told  all  these  things  un- 
to the  eleven,  and  to  all  the  rest. 

10  It  was  Mary  Magdalene,  and 
Joanna,  and  Mary  the  mother  of 
James,  and  other  women  that  were 
with  them,  which  told  these  things 
unto  the  apostles. 

11  And  their  words  seemed  to  them 
as  idle  tales,  and  they  believed  them 
not. 

(12  Now  Peter  had  arisen,  &"€. 
13.  And  behold  two  of  them  had 
gone  that  same  day  to  a  village,  S^c. 
See  the  Cr.  and  the  ReT.    and  Marg.) 


Resurrection  {concluded.) 


JOHN    XX,       (KEV). 

ORDER    OF    EVENTS. 

PERIOD. 

11  But  Mary  stood   without  at  the 
sepulchre  weepiug  :  and  as  she  wept, 
she   stooped   down,    and  looked  into 
the  sepulchre, 

12  And  seeth  two  angels   in   white 
sitting,  the  one  at  the    head,  and  the 
other  at  the  feet,  where  the   body  of 
Jesus  had  lain. 

13  And  they  say  unto  her,  Woman, 
why  weepest   thou?     She  saith  unto 
them,  Because  they  have  taken  away 
my  Lord,  and  I  know  not  where  they 
have  laid  him. 

14  And   when   she   had   thus   said, 
she    turned    herself    back,  and   saw 

The  other  women  go  right  into  the  tomb ; 
but  Mary  stands  in  the  doorway,  stooping. 
They  all  see  a  vision  of  two  angels  within. 

The  angels   speak   to    Mary  weeping  in 
the  doorway,  and  she  answers.  Perceiving 
a  shadow  behind  her,  she   turns,  and  step- 
ping from  the  tomb. 

i 

Jesus  standing,  and   knew  not    that 
it  was  Jesus. 

15  Jesus    saith  unto  her,  Woman, 
why   weepest   thou?     whom    seekest 
thou?     She,  supposing  him  to  be  the 
gardener,  saith  unto  him,  Sir,  if  thou 
have     borne     him      hence,    tell    me 
where  thou  hast  laid  him,  and  I. will 
take  him  away. 

16  Jesus    saith    unto     her,     Mary. 

she  beholds  a  man  be- 
fore her  who  kindly  inquires  her  business. 
Him  she  addresses  as   the   gardener.     He 
simply    responds     in     a     familiar     tone, 
"Mary!" 

Meanwhile,  the  women  in  the   tomb  are 
addressed   by   the  two  angels.     They  now 
leave  the  tomb. 

2 

i 
I 

She  turned   herself,    and   saith  unto 
him,  Rabboni;  which   is  to  say.  Mas- 
ter. 

17  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Touch  me 
not;    for  I  am   not  yet  ascended   to 
my  Father  :  but  go  to  my  brethren, 
and  say  unto  them,   I    ascend    unto 
my  Father,  and  your  Father;    and  to 
my  God,  and  your  God. 

Some  of  them,  hurrying  to  the  city,  tell 
oi  angels  %&^n:   while  others,  turning  one 
side,  run  directly  upon   Mary,  just  as  she 
recognizes     the     voice     of    Jesus    saying 
"Maryl"    and   exclaims,    "Rabboni,  Mas- 
ter!" 

They  all  at   once  fall   to   grasp  his  feet 
in  worship.     Whereupon  he  says,  "Touch 
me  not:  I  am  soon   to  ascend.     But   go  to 
my  brethren,  and  then  to  Galilee,  where  I 
shall  be  seen." 

5 

i 
i 

18  Mary  Magdalene  came  and  told 
the  disciples  that  she  had  seen  the 
Lord,  and  that  he  had  spoken  these 
things  unto  her. 

They   start   to  go;    but   are   met   by  the 
watchmen,  who  are  preparing  for  an  over- 
hauling of  the  matter  by  the  council.  With 
this  detention  (perhaps  used  as  witnesses), 
they  do  not  reach  the  disciples  with  their 
message  from  Jesus  himself,  until  later  in 
the  day,   when   the   two   have   started  for 
Emmaus,  not  knowing  that   he   has   been 
seen. 

0 

ERRATA. 

P.  39,  end  of  §  46,  insert  (See  also  Period  E,  ^  62,  p.  159.) 

P,  49,  §  63,  line  10,  read  'Judges',  not  John. 

P.  49,  §  63,  line  13,  read  'I  Chron.",  not  II  Chron. 

P.  50,  line  II,  read  'Lu.  ii:  21',  not  31. 

P.  52,  §  67,  last  line,  read  'Hos.  ii:  11,'  not  iii:  11. 

P.  64,  line  9,  read  (Ex.  xii:  6),  not  16. 

P.  64,  §  85,  last  line,  read  (John  i:  29  etc.),  not  31. 

P.  72,  §  100,  line  9,  read  (ante),  not  (ante). 

P.  73,  par.  2,  line  6,  read  '  unius  ',  not  '  unias  '. 

P.  103,  line  7,  read  'Gen.  v  and  xi',  not  v:  11. 

P.  108,  line  2,  read  'kingdom',  not  king. 

P.  124,  §  30,  line  I,  read  'Zedekiah's  8th  year',  not  9th. 

P.  126,  line  5,  read  '515',  not  575. 

P.  136,  line  4  from  hot.,  read  'repeated',  not  repented. 

P.    138,  ?  ly,  line  2,  read  'sacked',  not  sucked. 

P.   155,  line  8  from  bot.,  read  '332',  not  532. 

P.  155,  line  6  from  bot.,  insert  'to'  before  'the  spurious'. 

P.  187,  line  8  from  bot.,  read  'verses',  not  years. 

P.  218,  I  7,  line  4,  read  '580,'  not  585. 

P.  221,  line  5  from  bot.,  read  '1491',  not  1493. 

P.  231,  line  3-5  from  bot.,  read  'Astruc',  and  'p  678'  and  '§  19' 

P.  245,  end  of  2nd  par.,  read  'Gal.  iii:  17',  not  7. 

P.  245,  line  6  from  bot.,  read  'p  775',  not  375. 

P.  251,  'i  80,  line  3,  read  'g  i,  5',  not  4. 

P.  255  line  12,  after  'dedication'  insert  ')to  the  9th  of  Darius(' 

P.  258,  §  93,  line  9,  read  'vii:  13',  not  ix:  13. 

P.  260,  line  3  from  bot.,  read  '(xxx:  29)'.  not  (\'er.  29.) 

P.  261,  line  5  from  hot.,  read  'ch.  xxxvii'.  not  xxvii. 

P.  261,  line  3  from  hot.,  read  'xxxiv,  xxxv",  not  35. 

P.  262,  line  9,  read  'xxxi:  41",  not  40. 

P.  278,  §  129,  line  7,  read  'J5  146',  not  156. 

P.  280,  line  6,  after  'Thotmes'  insert  (") 

P.  282,  par.  3,  line  i,  read  (Jos.  J;  26),  not  'here'. 

P.  289,  line  9  from  bot.,  read  'xxi:  5',   not  3. 

P.  292,  lines,  read  'Gen.  xv".  not  xiii. 

P.  292,  line  9,  read  'D.  >?  10',  not  6. 

P.  295,  §  20,  line  7,  read  (9-15),  not  ix:  15. 

P.  297,  §  23,  line  7,  8,  read  'ch.  xxxiv,  xxx\ii',  not  xxiv,  xxvii. 

P.  298,  line  5  from  hot.,  read  'xxxiii:  19',  not  11. 

P.  304,  §  10,  line  3,  read  'i,  vi:  5'.  not  3.  vi:  5. 

P-  305'  §135  line  3.  read  'Psa.',  not  Isa. 

P-  313'  §  33i  line  6,  read  'Jos  11',  not  II. 

P-  335'  §  72,  line  6.  read  (A— F)  not  (A— E). 

P-  335i  ^  72,  line  14  from  bot.,  read  '1997',  not  1977. 


EKKATA  95 


P.  337,  line  6.  read  ■5530"  and  "1470',  not  5510  and  i-[ip. 

P.  341,  i:  84,  line  10.  read  "i:  12',  not  i:  2. 

P.  343,  line  II  from  hot.,  read  'vision',  not  dixision. 

1^-  354-  5^  7'  li'ie  5.  read  'here.  Jj  4".  not  ]i.  3. 

P.  360,  line  4,  read  'ii3o>2',  not  io3o''2. 

P.  367,  line  8  from  hot.,  read  'citation  i.  J;  4'.  not  \i.  ^. 

P.  368,    •     '    '•  -^  -        - 

P.  3: 

P. 


360,  line  4,  read  'ii3o>2',  not  io3o''2. 

367,  line  8  from  hot.,  read  'citation  i.  J;  4'.  not  ji.  3. 

368.  J5  36.  line  2,  read  '646',  not  649. 

370,  ^41.  line  I.  read  "the  year  of  Jo^edek',  not  "ahonf. 
373,  ?J  47,  line  3  from  end.  read  'Ji  z}^ ^  not  p.  13. 


>;  120.      Table  01-   Bihee  Dates. 


//,■; 


I  'she 


Creation 4004  4104 

Hirth  of  Ahel 3874  3974 

' '        Enos 3769  3869 

Cainan 3679  3779 

Mahalael 3609  3709 

.lared 3544  3644 

' '        Enoch 3382  3482 

Methuselah 3317  3417 

Lamech " 3130  3230 

Noah 2948  3048 

Shem 2446  2546 

The  Flood 2348  2448 

Birth  of  Arphaxed 2346  2446 

Saleh 2311  2411 

Eher 22S1  2381 

Pele^ 2247  2347 

"        Keu 2217  2317 

Serug 2185  2285 

>^:ili'>i" -155  2255 

Terah 2126  2226 

Ahrain 1996  2096 

Ahram  to  Canaan 1921  2021 

Isaac  l)t)ni 1896  1996 

Isaac  offered 1884  1984 

Jacoh  horn 1836  1936 

Jacoh  t(j  Haran 1760  1880 

Jose])ii  liorn 1746  1846 

Jacoh  t<j  Canaan 1740  1840 

jacol)  to  Egyi>t 1706  1806 

Ivxodus  from  l'-gy])t 1491  1591 

.Arrival  in  Canaan 1451  1551 


96- 


TABLE  OF  BIBLE  DATES — Continued. 


By  the 

B.  C. 

B.  C. 

Hebrew  Text. 

Usher. 

Correct 

Joshua's  death, 

1516 

Chushan  ends, 

1508 

Othniel  ends, 

1468 

Eglon  ends, 

1450 

Ehud  ends. 

1370 

Jabin  ends, 

Barak  and  Deb.  end 

1350 

I3IO 

Midian  ends. 

lO 

1303 

Gideon  ends, 

" 

1263 

Abimelech  ends, 

UfJ 

1260 

Tola  ends. 

q' 

1237 

J  air  ends. 

TT 

I215 

Amnion  ends. 

2 

1 197 

Jephthah  ends, 

'^ 

II9I 

Ibsan  ends. 

Cu 

1 184 

Elon  ends, 

1 174 

Abdon  ends,         |  ^ 

<«•    'Si 

1166 

Eh  begins,            >  '^ 

</)  a 

1 146 

Samson  begins,    }  ^ 

■-S 

1126 

Samuel  begins, 

1 106 

Saul  begins, 

1094 

David  begins. 

* 

1054 

Solomon  begins. 

t  IOI4 

Temple,  4th  of  Sol., 

1012 

ion 

Temple,  dedication, 

1004 

1003 

Solomon  ends, 

974 

Rehoboam  ends, 

957 

Abijah  ends. 

• 

954 

Asa  ends, 

in 

913 

_  ehos.  wi  Jehoram, 

rn 

896 

_  ehoshaphat  ends, 
"  ehoram  ends. 

888 

<urj 

884 

Ahaziah  ends. 

w' 

883 

Athaliah  ends. 

13 

877 

Jehoash  ends. 

0 

838 

Amaziah  ends. 

809 

Azariali  ends, 

Oh 

757 

Jotham  ends. 

741 

Ahaz  ends. 

in 

726 

Samaria  captured, 

721 

I   720 

Hezekiah  ends. 

697 

By  the  B.  C.  B.  C. 

Hebrew  Text.  Usher.     Correct. 


Manasseh  ends, 

Amon  ends, 

Josiah  ends, 

Jehoiachin  taken, 

Jerusalem  destroyed,   588 

Capturing  finished, 

Jehoiachin  ends, 

Cyrus'  Decree, 

Darius'  Decree,  520 

2nd  Temple  Jubilee, 

Ezi^a  Deci^ee,  7  Art., 

Nehemiah  Decree  20  Art., 

Malachi,  end  of  O.  T., 

Alexander  the  Gr't  ends, 

Seleucic  Era  begins. 

Ant.  Epiph.  pol'tes  Temp.    "+ 

Judas  Maccabeus  begins,    '-"^'^ 

Judas  Aristobulus  King,      fc 

Pompey  takes  Jerusalem,  -a 

Julius  Caesar  ends,  -2 

Herod  takes  Jerusalem,        a^ 

Christ  born, 

Herod  dies,  B.C.    a; 

Archelaus  ends,         A.D.  ^ 

Christ  in  the  temple, 

Tiberius'  co-reign, 

Augustus  Cassar  ends, 

Pilate  begins, 

John  Baptist  begins, 

Christ  baptized, 

Christ  crucified, 

Saul,  Cornelius,  &  Gentiles, 

End  of  "  70  weeks," 
Paul  visits  Jerusalem, 
Agrippal  begins. 
Council  of  Jerusalem, 
Felix  begins, 
Festus  begins, 
Paul  sent  to  Rome, 
Vespasian  comes, 
Jerusalem  destroyed,  A.D 


642 
640 
609 
598 
587 
583 
561 
537 
520 

513 

457 
444 
408 

323 

312 

168 

163 

106 

64 

44 

37 

4.5 

4.3 

8 

9 

12 

14 

26 

26 

27 

30 

34 

37 
41 
51 
53 
60 
60 
67 
70 


*JoRephus,  by  giving  Solomon  i  year  of  joint-reign  with  David,  has 
David's  reign  B.  C.  1053-1013.  Then,  in  the  Antiq.,  he])uts  the  temple 
building  1010-1003,  offsetting  by  i  year  given  to  Shamgar.  (See  Period 
1^.  §  5.  note,  and  Restor.  Jos.,  §  18,  51.) 


(Go  TO  Page  ioi.) 


OLD   TESTAMENT   CHRONOLOGY. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  CHRONOLOGY. 


Its  Certainty  and  Importance. 

The  several  interiuxls  of  Old  Testament  chronology  are  clear  and 
determinable  beyond  reasonable  dispute.  Each  interval  may  in  its  turn 
be  called  in  question,  and  honestly  discussed.  But  these  occasional 
questionings  do  not  combine  to  unsettle  the  several  datings,  or  bring 
the  whole  chronology  into  uncertainty.  On  the  contrary,  the  whole 
certainty  is  increased  by  the  interplay  of  the  several  questionings. 
Thus, 

1.  The  certainty  of  the  scripture  interval  254  years,  from  the  death 
of  Solomon  to  the  capture  of  Samaria,  B.  C.  974  to  720,  as  the  dura- 
tion of  the  Ten  Tribes,  may  be  denied  by  some  Assyriologists;  but  not 
denied  as  biblical  (that  were  impossible),  only  denied  as  not  in  accord- 
ance with  Assyriology.  But  this  can  throw  no  doubt  on  scripture 
chronology  as  such;  it  can  only  raise  the  question  whether  there  is  a 
possible  rival  to  overturn  it.  The  fact  is,  the  interval  254  years  is  the 
only  one  that  scripture  gives  or  can  give  without  self-contradiction. 
And  whether  that  254  is  correct,  is  only  a  question  whether  the  scrip- 
tural dating  is  worth  anything  or  not  ?  No  question  arises  as  to  what 
date  is  given  by  scripture-  it  is  only,  what  use  can  be  made  of  it  ?  (See 
Period  E,  >J  34,  44.)     Again, 

2.  The  certainty  of  the  scripture  interval  580  years  given  by  Paul 
(in  Acts  xiii:  18-22)  and  the  book  of  Judges,  reaching  from  the  Exodus 
to  the  Temple,  may  be  denied  by  some  Egyptologists  and  others — 
denied  as  inconsistent  with  some  other  scripture  (say  I  Kings  vi:  i),  or 
more  likely  denied  as  disagreeing  with  some  late  theory  of  Egyqatology. 
But  this  unsettles  nothing.  The  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the  Bible 
reckoning;  and  any  uncertainty  as  to  what  that  Bible  reckoning  is, 
research  is  fast  clearing  away.     (Period  D,  i^  i,  40.)     Yet  again, 

3.  Uncertainty  as  to  the  scripture  interval  430  years  of  sojourning 
at  Ex.  xii:  40,  may  be  brought  forwacd.  But  the  whole  chronology 
viewed  together  keeps  it  quite  sure  that  the  entire  sojourning  in 
Canaan  as  well  as  in  Egypt  is  included  in  the  430;  and  the  harmony  of 
the  complete  history  is  helped,  not  hindered,  by  the  separate  points 
raised.     (Period  C,  >?  i,  9.)     Still  further. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  CHRONOLOGY  103 

4.  The  certainty  of  Abraham's  delay  of  sixty  years  in  reaching 
Canaan,  till  "  his  father  was  dead"  (Acts  vii:  6),  may  be  called  in  ques- 
tion. But  it  certainly  is  scripture  teaching,  and  will  probably  stand  as 
long  as  Bible  datings  are  acknowledged  at  all.  (Period  A,  B,  §58.) 
Once  more, 

5.  The  certainty  of  the  diluvian  periods  1656  +  352  =  2008,  given 
in  Gen.  v:  11  (Period  A,  B,  §72),  may  be  questioned  as  more  probably 
correct  in  the  Septuagint  (2242  +  1172  =  3414 — see  Period  A,  B,  §75). 
But  the  late  attempts  to  make  out  here  no  cJo-onology  at  all,  must  fail; 
and  the  doubt  between  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts  will  not  always 
confound  Bible  chronology.     (Period  A,  B,  §39,  40.) 

These  are  all  the  great  questions  that  disturb  Old  Testament  dating 
as  a  whole.  And  the  notable  thing  about  them  is,  that  they  do  not 
combine  to  make  a  chaos  of  the  subject,  as  some  would  represent;  but 
the  combining  of  these  different  points  reduces  the  difficulties  of  the 
whole.  The  one  grand  fact  made  apparent  by  the  whole  Old  Testa- 
ment considered  together,  is,  that  the  Bible  has  a  chronology,  a  clearly 
intended  and  plainly  marked  plan  of  dating,  all  its  own.  And  the 
second  thing  apparent,  is,  that  it  has  710  rival  system  of  chiwiology, 
Assyrian,  Egyptian,  Tyrian,  or  other,  to  set  it  authoritatively  aside. 
The  overwhelming  result  is,  to  set  forth  the  scriptui'e  dating  as  the  one 
only  universal  chronology  of  the  world;  which  has  the  right  of  way, 
with  full  presumption  in  its  favor;  so  that  every  opposing  claim  must 
bear  the  whole  burden  of  proof,  and  only  assert  itself  by  proving  the 
Bible  false. 

Hence  the  way  many  Bible  apologists  have,  of  telling  over  the  many 
chronological  difficulties  of  the  Bible,  as  rendering  the  whole  uncertain, 
like  a  mere  bank  of  fog,  is  entirely  to  be  deprecated.  Says  the  Sun- 
day School  Times  (October  27,  1894):  "Is  there  anything  in  the 
Bible  text  that  forbids  the  supposition  that  man  was  created  ten  thou- 
sand years  before  the  Christian  era  ?  Is  there  any  approximate  agree- 
ment among  the  more  strict  interpreters  of  the  letter  of  the  Bible  text 
as  to  the  world's  chronology,  and  that  of  the  Bible  ?  If  so,  the  editor 
of  the  Sunday  School  Times  is  not  aware  of  the  fact.  She  (the  writer 
referred  to)  is  permitted  to  saj^  her  say  on  that  vague  and  unessential 
subject."  What  we  object  to  in  this  way  (so  common)  of  treating  the 
subject,  is  not  the  pointing  out  of  the  things  that  are  under  discussion, 
but  the  representing  of  the  points  in  dispute  as  more  numerous  and 
flagrant  than  they  are,  and  especially  turning  off  the  whole  matter  of 
chronology  (thus  befogged  in  pe?^ple's  minds)  as  being  "  a  vague  and 
unessential  subject." 

The  certainty  of  a  true  Bible  chronology  is  what  we  wish  emphat- 
ically to  set  forth.  And  the  importance  of  it,  we  urge  as  being  the 
fundamental    historical  basis  of   Bible    truth.     If  God  has  kept  the 


104  OLD  TESTAMENT  CHRONOLOGY 

time-piece  of  the  universe,  and  correctly  adjusted  his  inspired  word 
thereto,  it  is  well  for  God's  people  to  know  and  utilize  the  fact. 

ASSYRIOLOGY    AND    EGYPTOLOGY. 

During  this  last  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  Assyrian  excava- 
tions and  decipherings  have  made  great  progress,  and  have  thrown 
much  light  upon  Bible  manners  and  events.  We  duly  appreciate  the 
many  illustrations  and  confirmations  of  scripture  thus  furnished;  but 
are  sorry  to  find  among  Assyrian  scholars  too  much  of  a  disposition  to 
underrate  the  Bible  chronology,  and  to  bring  Assyrian  datings  into 
collision  with  it,  for  which  there  is  no  occasion  whatever. 

The  fragments  of  a  supposed  annual  chronicle  of  Assyrian  rulers 
have  been  found,  which,  when  pieced  together,  give  a  seeming  record 
of  two  hundred  years  during  the  time  of  the  Jewish  kings.  This 
Assyriologists  call  the  "  Eponym  Canon,"  and  by  it  many  undertake 
to  prove,  that  the  Bible  chronology  of  the  kings  is  forty  or  fifty  years 
out /of  the  way,  in  having  the  death  of  Solomon,  B.  C,  974,  which  they 
say  should  be  about  B.  C.  929.  (See  Period  E,  i$  79.)  This  theory  can 
not  be  reconciled  with  scripture,  except  by  a  complete  destruction  of 
all  the  scores  of  Bible  numbers  given  in  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chron- 
icles, etc.  So  that  this  newly  announced  Assyrian  chronology  com- 
pletely overturns  the  whole  Bible  dating,  and  can  not  escape  with  the 
plea,  that  some  single  passage  of  scripture  is  corrupted. 

With  the  greatest  confidence  this  anti-biblical  chronology  is  being 
propagated  as  if  the  genuine  and  certain  reckoning,  in  defiance  of 
scripture.  And  it  is  put  forward  in  many  of  our  Sunday  School  Lesson 
Helps,  without  a  note  of  warning  that  it  is  merely  an  unproved  theory, 
by  no  ineans  displacmg  the  Bible  dating.  (For  specimens  of  the  bold 
assurance  of  leading  Assyriologists  in  giving  this  innovation  as  the 
absolute  truth,  see  Dr.  McCurdy  on  *'  Oriental  Research  and  the 
Bible,"  in  Sunday  ScJiool  Times,  May  11,  1895,  and  many  similar 
articles  in  that  and  other  quarters.) 

Now,  a  little  study  show^s  the  complete  unceiiainty  of  all  this 
theorizing  in  Assyriology,  and  the  fallaciousness  of  building  any  sys- 
tem of  chronology  on  such  a  flimsy  basis,  in  contradiction  of  the  mul- 
tiplied and  assured  assertions  of  the  Bible.  One  great  object  of  this 
present  work  is  to  show  how  sure  is  the  Bible  dating,  especially 
through  those  times  of  the  kings,  and  how  impossible  it  is  for 
Assyriological  theory  to  overthrow  it.  Moreover,  the  late  and  present 
attempt  to  contradict  by  200  years  the  Bible  date  of  the  Exodus,  by 
means  of  Egyptology,  is  here  shown  to  be  equally  futile.  These 
archaeological  researches  of  our  day  are  found  to  be  greatly  corrobora- 
tive of  the  Bible  history,  and  in  no  respect  contradictory  to  it. 


PERIOD  F-EXILE  AND  AFTER. 

PART  I. 

THE    INTERVENING    DATES. 
^  I.  The  standard  of  chronology,  from  the  close  of  the  scripture  back 
to  the  Old  Testament  kingdom  of  Israel,  is  Ptolemy's  Canon,  whose 
datings  we  here  give :  ^     ,      „  ^      t-,    „  ,     • 

'^  Years.      Total.      B.C.    i  Thoth  begins. 

....  ^  , ,  o  +  747  Feb.  26,  747. 

I  Nabonassar 14  j,         73? 

=  c/.-      [We  omit] 108         ^2^        ^^^ 

■g  rt    I  Nabopolassar 21         ^  g 

^^    'Nebuchadnezzar 43         186        561 

Evil  Merodach 2 

Neriglisar 4 

Nabonadus 17 


-So 


i^^        559 

192        555 

^  „        209        538 

Cyi-us 9      218      529 

Cambyses o         ^  ^a  _i_ 

Darius  1 36 

Xerxes 21 

Artaxerxes  1 41 

Darius  II 19 

Artaxerxes  II 46        ^f        ^5^  Nov 

Ochus 21        -5  y        ^^^ 

Arogus 2 

Darius  III 4 

I  Alexander  Mac 8         '  "" 

Philip  Arid 7        li        ii7 

Alexander  .Egus 12        J^ 

Ptolemy  Lagus 20        J^^        ^g^ 

Philadelphus 38        l^i         247  Oct. 

Euergetes  1 25  ^         ^22 

Philopator 17         f..         205 

Epiphanes 24  .  ^g^ 

Philometor     35        502        146  Sep. 

Euergetes  II 29        g  ^ 

Soter.. 36        5g  gi 

Dionysms 29         .  g 

^^^«°l^^t^'^ "'         718+     30B.  C.^748 

Augustus 43        761  =     i^  A.  D.+747 

Tibenus 22 

Caius  Calig 4 

Claudius 14 

Nero... 14        815  68 

Vespasian 10        g^  g 

Titus.. 3         828  81 

Domitian 15 

Nerva i 

Trajan 19 

Adrian 21 

Antonius  Pius 23 


Cambyses 8        226  +  521  Jan  1=747. 

262  +  486  Dec.  31=748. 

283        465 

324        424 

343         405 

389         359 

410        338 

412         336 

416         332 


783  36  Aug. 

787  40 

801  54 


843  96  July. 

844  97 
863  116 
884  137 
go7  =  160  A.  D.+747. 


907  Nab.  years  total,  from  Feb.  747  B.  C  to  July,  160  A.  D. 

105 


106  PERIOD   F 


Remarks. 


Ptolemy,  the  author  of  the  Canon,  Hved  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  and  he  gives  (as  above)  the  correct  chronology  of  the  reigns 
back  from  his  own  day  to  the  beginning  of  the  Nabonassan  era  in  Bab- 
ylon, B.  C.  747.  He  employs  the  Nabonassan  or  Egyptian  year  of  just 
365  days. 

This  Nabonassan  year  was  rotary,  revolving  about  the  seasons  1461 
times  in  1460  Julian  years  of  365X  days  each.  Its  year  i  began  with  i 
Thoth  at  Feb.  26,  B.  C.  747.  In  B.  C.  521  (bissextile)  i  Thoth  came 
on  Jan.  i  and  also  on  Dec.  31,  two  Canon  years  starting  in  the  same 
Julian  year.  This  makes  the  B.  C.  dating  (in  the  table  above)  change 
one  year  at  that  point.  But  one  year  is  also  lost  in  passing  from  B.  C. 
to  A.  D.  or  vice  versa  (because  there  is  no  year  o);  so  that  from  B.  C.  i 
to  A.  D.  I  is  bul  one  year,  and  from  B.  C  3  to  A.  D.  4  is  but  six  years. 
In  B.  C.  I  or  A.  D,  o  to  3,  the  i  Thoth  came  on  August  23;  in  A.  D. 
12  to  15  it  came  August  20,  and  Augustus  died  August  19,  A.  D.  14. 

Hales  (following  Dodwell)  has  shown  conclusively  that  the  Canon  of 
Ptolemy  ^wz/^-dates  each  reign;  that  is,  it  begins  each  reign  (as  a 
whole  number  of  years)  from  the  Nabonassan  new  year  or  first  of 
the  month,  Thoth  next  befot'e  the  accession  of  the  king.  The  only 
exception  was  the  case  of  Augustus,  whose  death  (Aug.  19)  was  so  near 
the  I  Thoth  (then  Aug.  20),  that  the  succession  was  put  there  in 
the  same  year  (A.  D.  14).  This  rational  view  of  the  case  exhibits 
a  natural  courtesy  shown  to  the  reigning  monarch  on  the  part  of  the 
court  recorder  of  the  time,  in  calling  his  first  fractional  year  a 
whole  year,  it  suiting  a  king's  vanity  to  seem  to  have  ruled  not  less  but 
rather  more  than  he  had. 

Hales  says:     "Alexander  began  at  the  battle  of  Arbela,  Oct.  i,  B.  C. 

331,  but  the  Canon  puts  him  at  the  preceding  new  year,  Nov.  14,  B.  C. 

332.  The  death  of  Alexander  was  May  22,  B.  C.  323,  but  his  successor 
is  set  down  in  the  Canon  at  the  previous  new  year,  Nov.  12,  B.  C,  324; 
which  is  confirmed  by  Censorinus,  who  reckons  from  thence  294  years 
to  the  beginning  of  Augustus  (alone)  in  B.  C.  30.  Again,  Tiberius  died 
Mar.  16,  A.  D.  37;  but  his  successor  is  put  at  the  preceding  new  year, 
Aug.  14,  A.  D.  36.  Vespasian  began  July  i,  A.  D.  69;  but  the  Canon 
reckons  him  from  the  previous  new  year,  Aug.  6,  A,  D.  68.  Petavius 
had  complained  that  Ptolemy  often  makes  the  reigns  begin  a  year  too 
soon;  but  this  new  year  antedating  explains  it  all."  (Hales.)  See 
all  this  confirmed  at  Period  G,  §  108.* 


*§.2.  Note — Schwartz  makes  a  desperate  attempt  to  reverse  this 
well-established  law  of  Ptolemy's  Canon,  and  to  show  that  it^^^Adates 
each  reign,  instead  of  ante-dating  as  shown  above.  For  this  purpose 
he  claims  that  the  death  of  Alexander  the  Great  inOlym.  114:  i,  was  at 


EXILE    AND    AFTER  107 

JOSEPHUS    AND    THE    MaCCABEES. 

-J  3.  To  learn  the  Jewish  dating  for  170  years  before  the  Christian 
era,  Josephus  is  our  best  authority,  together  with  the  books  of  Macca- 
bees in  our  O.  T.  Apocrapha. 

Josephus'  reckoning  of  those  times  is  learned  from  the  following 
citations: 

I.      "  King  Antiochus  returning  out  of  Egypt,  for  fear  of  the  Romans, 

the  beginning  of  that  Olympic  year,  not  toward  its  close,  in  the  spring 
of  B.  C.  523.  The  only  argument  he  gives  is  that  Plutarch  puts  the 
death  of  Alexander  in  the  month  "I)aesius,"  which  he  (Schwartz) 
claims  as  "corresponding  to  the  Athenian  month  Hecatombion"  in 
August  (B.  C.  324,  he  says).  This  is  very  dubious,  to  say  the  least. 
The  month  "Daesius"  must  mean  "Desius,"  which  Josephus  gives  as 
the  Macedonian  name  for  the  3d  Hebrew  month  "  Sivan "  (May). 
Whiston's  Josephus  (War.,  3,  vii:  29,  31,  32),  gives  it  as  "the 
month  Desius  [Sivan"];  and  the  context  (§3,  39)  gives  before  it  "the 
2d  month  Artemesius  [jyar],"  and  after  it  the  4th  month  Panemus 
[TamuzJ  "  or  June. 

Accordingly,  all  historians  tell  us,  like  RoUin,  that  Alexander  "died 
in  the  middle  of  the  spring,  the  first  year  of  the  1 14th  Olympiad.  [Hales 
says  May  22,  B.  C.  323].  He  was  32  years  and  8  months  old."  "He 
was  born  in  the  first  year  of  the  io6th  Olympiad,  when  his  father  had 
just  won  in  the  Olympic  games."  {Rollin  v,  p.  192,  and  iv,  p.  278). 
From  the  beginning  of  Olymp.  io5:  i,  the  32  years  8  mo.  carry  us  to 
the  spring  ending  OJymp.  114:  i,  /.  c.,  May,  B.  C.  323.  And  Josephus 
tells  us  that  "  Hecateus,  the  philosopher,  who  was  contemporary  with 
Alexander,  mentions  the  battle  near  Gaza,  in  the -nth  year  after  the 
death  of  Alexandei%  and  in  the  117th  Olympiad."  (Jos.  7's.  Ap.  I,  >5  22.) 
Now  to  reach  Olym.  117:  i,  the  "nth  year,"  must  nm  back  only  11 
years  to  the  end  oi  Olym.  114:  i,  as  the  time  of  Alexander's  death,  viz., 
m  the  spring  of  A.  D.  323.  Soon  after  this  battle  at  Gaza.  Seleucus 
entered  Babylon,  and  then  began  the  famous  Seleucic  era,  B.  C.  311- 
312  (+  the  II  years=the  323  B.  C.) 

Another  fact  proyes  the  same.  At  Alexander's  death  he  had  been 
in  Babylon  "almost  a  year"  (p.  189).  But  one  of  the  first  things 
he  had  done  after  entering  Babylon  was  the  writing  of  "a  letter  which 
was  to  be  read  publicly  in  the  assembly  of  the  Olympic  games " 
(p.  186).  This  letter  must  have  been  written  just  before  the  games 
of  Olym.  114,  in  July  of  B.  C.  324,  and  his  death,  "almost  a  year" 
afterward,  was  in  May,  B.  C.  323.  It  is  not  possible  to  disturb 
this  well-established  date. 

Mr.  Schwartz  further  claims  (Letter  July  28,  '93),  that  "Augustus 
was  emperor,  so  far  as  Egypt  was  concerned,  Aug.  i,  B.  C.  30,  but 
Ptolemy's  Canon  dates  his  first  year  from  Aug.  31  of  that  year, 
/^fl5/-dating  again."  To  which  we  answer,  not  so.  True,  "  Cassar 
Augustus  gained  Anthony's  fleet  on  the  Kal.  of  August "  {Clinton,  B.  C. 
30);  but  he  did  not  enter  Alexandria  till  the  last  of  August  [Clinton 
at  A.  D.  14);  and  Cleopatra  did  not  die  till  some  time  after,  as  all 
agree.  The  Egyptians  could  not  reckon  the  reign  of  Augustus  as 
beginning  until  their  Queen  Cleopatra  was  dead  in  September.  So 
that  Ptolemy's  Canon  certainly  rt;/A'-dates  in  prttting  it  at  1  Thoth  or 

Aug.   31,    B.   C.   30.       [Note  amtiinu-ti  on  next  page.) 


108  PERIOD    F 

made  an  expedition  against  the  city  of  Jerusalem;  and  when  he  was 
there,  in  the  hundred  and  forty-third  year  of  the  king  of  the  Seleucidae, 
he  took  the  city  without  fighting,  those  of  his  party  opening  the  gates 
to  him."     (Antiq.  12,  v:  3.) 

2.  "The  temple  was  made  desolate  by  Antiochus  (Epiphanes),  and 
so  continued  for  three  years.  This  desolation  happened  to  the  temple 
in  the  hundred  and  forty-fifth  year,  on  the  twenty-fifth  day  of  the 
month,  Apelleus  [Kisleu],  and  in  the  hundred  iifty  and  third  Olympiad; 
but  it  was  dedicated  anew,  on  the  same  day,  the  twenty-fifth  of  the 
month  Appelleus,  in  the  hundred  and  forty-eighth  year,  and  m  the 
hundred  and  fifty-foui'th  Olympiad."     (Antiq.  12,  vii:  6.) 

3.  "Then  the  fore-named  Antiochus  (Eupator)  and  Lysias,  the 
general  of  his  army,  deprived  Onias,  who  was  also  named  Menelaus, 
of  the  high-priesthood,  and  slew  him  at  Berea,  and  put  Jacemus  into 
the  place  of  the  high-priest."  (Antiq.  20,  x:  i.)  "This  was  in  the 
hundred  and  fiftieth  year  of  the  dominion  of  the  Seleucidae  .... 
It  was  the  seventh  year,  in  which  by  our  laws  we  are  obliged  to  let  it 
(the  land)  lie  uncultivated.  ...  So  the  king  sent  Menelaus  to 
Berea,  a  city  of  Syria,  and  there  had  him  put  to  death."  (Antiq.  12, 
ix:  3,  5.  7-) 

4.  "The  city  was  taken  [by  Pompey]  in  the  third  month,  on  the 
day  of  the  fast  [the  23d  Sivan],  in  the  one  hundred  seventy-ninth 
Olympiad,  when  Caius  Antonius  and  Marcus  Tullius  Cicero  were  con- 
suls."   (Anf.  i4,iv:j.)    "  This  destruction  [by  Herod]  befell  the  city  of 


Schwartz  also  claims  that  Augustus  died  in  A.  D.  13,  a  year  before 
Ptolemy's  Canon  has  it  (A.  D.  14).  And  he  gives  Dio  in  evidence,  with 
his  76  years  only  for  the  life  of  Augustus,  and  56  years  only  for 
Augustus'  reign,  i.  e.  (he  says)  from  B.  C.  44  to  A.  D.  13.  But 
this  very  "  Dio  tells  us  that  Augustus  reigned  44  years  from  the  battle 
of  Actium  "  (so  says  Usher),  /.  c.  from  Sept.  2,  B.  C.  31  to  Aug.  19,  A. 
D.  14.  (His  56  years  may  have  begun  from  B.  C.  43,  just  as  Ap- 
pleton's  Cyc.  of  Biog.  and  some  other  authors  now  jjut  it;  which 
will  not  change  the  terminus,  A.  D.  14).  Schwatz  himself  says  that 
Dio  has  the  "  Aug.  ig  "  wrong  for  the  death  of  Argustus;  so  his  56  and 
76  may  also  be  wrong. 

Josephus,  who  was  almost  contemporary,  is  certainly  better  evi- 
dence than  Dio  300  years  afterward.  And  Josephus  (Antig.  18,  ii:  2) 
says  that  Augustus  "lived  77  years,"  and  "reigned  57  years,"  z.  <?., 
from  B.  C.  44  to  A.  D.  14.  Ptolemy's  Canon  has  43  years  for  Augustus 
alone,  from  A.  D.  14  back  to  the  death  of  Cleopatra  (its  next  reign) 
in  September,  B.  C.  30  (not  to  the  defeat  of  Anthony,  Aug.  2,  nor 
to  Augustus'  entrance  into  Alexadria  the  last  of  August,  as  alleged). 
Schwartz  makes  but  42  years,  from  B.  C.  30  to  A.  D.  13.  He  decides 
that  Augustus  died,  not  on  August  ig  (as  in  Dio),  but  on  Sept.  22 
(which  he  works  out  from  Velleius).  This  agrees  better  with  Josephus 
and  at  the  same  time  it  more  fully  verifies  Ptolemy's  Canon,  as  always 
a;?/t'-dating  an  accession.  The  contrary  theory  can  not  by  any  possi- 
bility be  maintained.     See  Period  G,  ^  108,  Period  E,  §  3,  ^  142. 


EXILE    AND    AFTER  109 

Jerusalem  when  Marcus  Agrippa  and  Caninius  were  consuls  of  Rome, 
in  the  hundred  eighty  and  fifth  Olympiad,  in  the  third  month,  on  the 
solemnity  of  the  fast,  as  if  a  periodical  revolution  of  calamities  had 
returned,  since  that  which  befell  the  Jews  under  Pompey;  for  the  Jews 
were  taken  by  him  on  the  same  day,  and  this  was  twenty-seven  years' 
time."     {Antiq.  14,  xvi:  4.) 

5.  "And  thus  did  the  government  of  the  Asmoneans  [or  Macca- 
bees] cease,  a  hundred  and  twenty-six  years  after  it  was  set  up."  {lb.) 
At  17,  vi:  4,  it  is  "  125  years." 

6.  "  The  number  of  the  high-priests  from  the  days  of  Herod  until 
the  day  when  Titus  took  the  temple  and  the  city  and  burnt  them,  were 
in  all  twenty-eight;  the  time  also  that  belonged  to  them  was  a  hundred 
and  seven  years."     {Antiq.  20,  x:  i.) 

7.  "  Herod  died,  having  reigned  since  he  had  procured  Antigonus 
to  be  slain  [and  took  Jerusalem]  thirty-four  years;  but  since  he  had 
been  declared  king  by  the  Romans,  thirty-seven."  {Antiq.  ly,  viii:  i.) 
"  Herod  died,  having  I'eigned  thirty-four  years  since  he  had  caused 
Antigonus  to  be  slain,  and  obtained  his  kingdom;  but  thirty-seven  years 
since  he  had  been  made  king  by  the  Romans."  {liar,  i,  xxxiii:  8.) 
See  further  in  Restor.  of  Jos.,  g  4. 

-i  4.  These  several  statements  being  collated,  give  the  following 
as  the  intervals  and  dates  of  Josephus: 

Intervals  of  Josephus. 

Jerusalem  taken  by  Antiochus B.  C.  170 — "    2  "  i 

Antiochus  Ep.  profanes  the  temple B.  C.  16S — '"    3  "  ;-m 

Judas  Maccabeus  cleanses  it B.  C.  165 —      2     ) 

Ant.  Eupator  deposes  Menelaus B.  C.  163 —    57     )  J 

Judas  Aristobulus  puts  on  a  crown B.  C.  106 —    42     r  fci^ 

Pompey  conquers  Jerusalem B.  C.    64 — ''  27  "  j  "^i 

Herod  conquers  Jerusalem B.  C.    37 — '"  34  "  )    : 

Herod  dies B.  C.  4-3 —    40     ;-  3 

Josephus  is  born A.  D.    38 —    32     )  ^:  )  > 

Titus  destroys  Jerusalem A.  D.     70 —    24        ^  - 

Josephus  writes  his  Antiquities A.  D.    94  ) 


110 


PERIOD   F 


M    fD    3 

S2.5hS 


"34"th  "27" 


, 

— ;r 

— ;r" 

„  ,  ^  ^ 

M 

H-S; 

C/3 

^^ 

C^tnoi  U"  -t-  +-  +-  -f^ 

^  c 

n 

vj    0 

0 

CiU) 

OvO    OOtnUJ 

0) 

5^ 

^c 

i-i 

^ 

^  vt  »^  ^ 

^ 

0 

o^  0 

n>^ 

g- 

0 

4-4-oj « 

0 

41 

too 

a 

■<i 

C^  0^  to 

^ 

."■  ? 

CD 

0 

-J  ^  ■<!  ^J 

-;-  Lu  ui  w 

•^ 

1^ 

^^ 

5^ 

a>^oo  ui 

Oi 

^ 

wo 

yr.> 

10 

2 

9 

M 

•— ,     p 

0 

0 

00  00  OO^J 

VI 

0 

00 

^  Ln  +-  0 

-3 

-p.  t^ 

'    ^     '    ' 

U) 

" 

- 

- 

- 

i^ 

CO 

ih 

W 

cn 

.1 

!" 

p 

P 

p 

cr 

cr 

2 

cr 

sr 

sr 

cr 

0      Q- 

ITEMS  AND  SPECIFICATIONS. 


The  Year  163  B.  C. 

^  5.  (I.)  The  deposition  of  Menelaus  from  the  high-priesthood  by 
king  Antiochus  Eupator,  as  the  era  of  substituted  Maccabean  rule, was 
in  B.  C.  163,  and  could  not,  in  Josephus'  reckoning,  be  any  earlier. 

Proof.  Antiochus  Epiphanes  died  in  the  Seleucic  year  149,  as 
stated  by  Josephus  (Antiq.  12,  ix:  2),  and  in  the  First  Book  of  Maccabees 
(6:16).    But  in  II  Maccabees  (10:  23,  33)  the  son,   Antiochus  Eupator, 


EXILE    AND    AFTER  111 

after  his  accession,  dates  his  message  to  Lysias  and  to  the  Jews,  on 
"the  15th  of  Xanthicus  [Nisan]  in  the  year  148."  Whiston,  in  a  note 
to  Josephus  (Antiq.  13,  vi:  7),  tells  us  that  "the  era  of  Seleucus  is 
known  to  have  begun  in  the  312th  year  before  the  Christian  era,  from 
its  spring  in  the  first  book  of  Maccabees,  and  from  its  autumn  in  the 
second  book  of  Maccabees;  it  did  not  begin  at  Babylon  till  the  next 
spring,  in  the  311th  year.  See  Prideaux  at  the  year  312,"  where  we 
find  similar  statements.  Accordingly,  the  year  149  of  I  Mac.  and  Jos. 
began  in  the  spring  of  B.  C.  164;  but  the  year  149  of  II  Mac.  did  not 
begin  till  the  autumn  of  B.  C.  164.  Therefore,  the  Xanthicus  or  Nisan 
of  its  148,  when  Ant.  Eupator  issued  his  message,  was  in  April  of  B.  C. 
164;  and  he  must  have  come  to  the  throne  just  before  that,  within  the 
same  month.  And  the  letter  of  Lysias,  his  general,  dated  "in  the 
year  148,  the  24th  day  of  the  month  Dioscurus,"  or  the  tivi)!  inonfk 
(II  Mac.  11:21,  see  in  Lid.  &  Scott  Gr.  Lex,),  may  have  been  in  Sivan 
or  June,  B.  C.  164.  These  messages  brought  peace;  "and  when  these 
covenants  were  made,  Lysias  went  to  the  king,  and  the  Jews  gave 
themselves  to  husbandry."     (II  Mac.  12:  i.) 

§  6.  But  accordmg  to  this  chapter  (II  Mac.  12),  Judas  Mac.  spent 
this  year,  B.  C.  164,  in  various  warlike  operations,  which  I  Mac.  (Ch.  5) 
followed  by  Josephus  (Ant.  12,  Ch.  viii),  narrates  before  mentioning 
the  death  of  Ant.  Epiphanes,  which  preceded  these  things,  in  the  spring. 
It  was  not  till  the  next  spring,  of  B.  C.  163,  that  is,  at  the  beginning  of 
Josephus'  Seleucic  "year  150,"  that  Judas  attacked  the  foreign  citadel 
in  Jerusalem,  as  Josephus  states  (Antiq.  12,  ix:  3).  And  thereupon, 
King  Ant.  Eupator  being  vexed  changed  his  policy  of  peace,  and  with 
Lysias  came  against  Judas;  when  the  siege  of  Bethsura  and  of  Jerusa- 
lem followed  (Antiq.  12,  ix:  2-5;  I  Mac.  vi:  18-54;  ^  Mac.  xiii:  1-21).  This 
was  in  the  summer  of  B.  C.  163,  before  the  Seleucic  year  149  of  II  Mac. 
ended  in  the  autumn  (II  Mac.  13:  i).  It  was  also  (in  September)  the  end 
of  the  Jews'  Sabbatic  year,  causing  great  scarcity  of  food  in  the  siege. 
(Antiq.  12,  ix:  5;  I  Mac.  vi: 49-54.) 

A  peace  was  finally  concluded,  and  the  enemy  left  that  fall.  It  is 
here  at  the  leaving  of  Ant.  Eupator,  toward  the  close  of  B.  C.  163 
(I  Mac.  vi:  55-63;  II  Mac.  xiii:  22-26),  that  Josephus  mentions  his  depo- 
sition of  Menelaus,  the  high-priest,  and  having  him  put  to  death  (Ant. 
12,  ix:  7).  But  in  II  Mac.  (13:  3-8),  whence  the  account  comes,  it  is  put 
in  the  early  summer,  at  the  coming  of  Ant.  Eupator.  At  any  rate,  it 
was  in  B.  C.  163;  and  //  can  not  be  got  any  earlier,  because  the  attack 
of  Judas  upon  the  citadel,  which  preceded  it,  did  not  occur  until  this 
year  150  Sel.,  which  began  in  March,  B.  C.  163.  Moreover,  the  fact 
that  that  was  the  Sabbatic  year,  proves  that  it  must  be  B.  C.  163  to 
agree  with  the  Sabbatics  given  at  B,  C.  135,  37  and  23.  In  the  next 
spring,  B,  C,  162,  Seleucic   "151,"  beginning.  Ant.  Eupator  was  slain. 


112  PERIOD    F 

as  stated  in  I  Mac.  (vii:  1-3),  having  reigned  just  "two  years,"  as  Jos- 
ephus  says  (Ant.  12,  x:  i.) 

§  7.  (II.)  The  deposition  and  death  of  Menelaus,  as  the  era  of 
established  Maccabean  rule,  was  in  B.  C.  163,  and  it  could  not,  in 
Josephus'  reckoning,  be  any  later,  for  example  in  B.  C.  162.  This  is 
not  only  proved  by  the  above  exhibit  of  the  events  and  dates,  but  by 
the  following  demonstrations.     {See  citations  from  Jos.,  g  3.) 

(i.)  Citations  5  AND  6:  The  "  126  years  "-|- the  "107  years."  Here 
is  given  the  time,  from  the  Menelaus  event,  when  fully  "the  Asmo- 
nean  government  was  set  up,"  to  "  the  day  when  Titus  took  the  tem- 
ple "  in  A.  D.  70 — given  as  "  126"  +  "  107  "  =  233  years,  or  the  233d 
year,  viz.,  from  A.  D.  70  back  to  B.  C.  163,  which  is  just  232  years  or 
the  233d  year.  From  A.  D.  70  to  B.  C.  37  is  106  years  or  the  "  107  "th 
year,  and  from  B.  C.  37  to  163  is  just  the  "  126  years"  given.  What 
could  be  a  plainer  demonstration,  that  we  are  correct  in  our  reckoning 
of  Josephus? 

(2.)  Down  to  Josephus'  Day,  the  "471  years"  -|-the  "200  years."* 
Here  (War.  i,  iii:  i;  Ant.  3,  viii:  9)  the  time  from  the  end  of  "the 
Babylonish  slavery  when  our  people  came  down  into  this  country," 
until  the  date  when  Josephus  "  composed"  this  book"  of  Antiquities,  is 
given  as  "471"  +  "200 "==671  years,  or  the  671st  year.  But  in  Ant. 
20,  x:  I,  the  time  from  the  end  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  "when 
they  were  returned  home,  "until  King  Ant.  Eupator"  when  he  "de- 
prived Menelaus  of  the  high-priesthood,"  is  given  as  -"414  years."  So 
that,  from  the  deposition  of  Menelaus  to  the  date  of  Josephus'  writing, 
he  gives  as  671 — "414  "  =  257  years,  or  the  257th  year.  And  in  Jos. 
Life,  §  I,  he  gives  his  own  birth  as  "in  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of 
Caius  Caesar,"  which  was  A.  D.  38  (Tiberius  having  died  March  16, 
A.  D.  37);  so  that  his  56  years  (Ant.  20,  xi:  3)  reached  into  A,  D.  94, 
where  also  ended  "the  13th  of  Domitian  who  began  in  A.  D.  81.  And 
in  that  "  56th  year"  of  his  life,  or  A.  D.  94,  he  says  he  was  writing. 

§  8.  Hence,  his  "  200th  year  before  that  must  reach  to  B.  C.  106, 
the  year  when  "  Aristobulus  put  on  the  diadem;  and  his  257th  year  just 
now  found  reaches  57  years  farther,  from  B.  C.  106  to  163,  at  the 
deposition  of  Menelaus.  We  thus  find,  that  the  two  events,  when 
"Aristobulus  changed  the  government  into  a  kingdom  and  was  the 
first  to  put  a  diadem  on  his  head"  (War.  i,  iii:  i),  and  when  "the 
breast-plate  (of  the  high-priest)  left  off  shining,  God  having  been  dis- 
pleased at  the  transgression  of  his  laws  (Ant.  3,  viii:  9) — were  syn- 
chronous events,  both  occurring  at  the  year  106  B.  C,  just  57  years 
after  the  deposition  of  Menelaus.  Could  anything  be  plainer  than  this 
doubled  demonstration  of  Josephus,  by  the  combination  of  all  his 
intervals,  that  we  have  him  correct?     But  note, 

*  See  Restor.  of  Jos.,  ^  4,  citations  2,  3. 


EXILE    AND    AFTER  113 


The  Detailed  Reigns 


(3.)  Take  the  detailed  reigns  from  Antiochus  to  Herod,  to  see  how 
they  corroborate  the  "  126  years"  and  all  our  reckoning. 

>i  9.  (a.)  The  Maccabean  era_.  Josephus  says  (Ant.  20,  x:  i),  that 
after  the  captivity  the  Jews  "until  Ant.  Eupator  were  under  a  demo- 
cratic government  414  years,*  and  then  "  Menelaus  was  "deprived  of 
the  priesthood  "  or  supremacy, giving  full  place  for  the  new  dynasty  oi 
Judas  Maccabees  and  his  successors.  It  is  true,  Judas  gained  great 
victories  before  that  event,  but  he  could  not  be  officially  recognized  as 
the  head  of  the  goverment,  so  long  as  the  high-priest  Menelaus,  was  in 
power.  And  it  is  true,  when  Menelaus  was  deposed  and  killed,  an- 
other man  (Alcimus  or  Jacimus)  was  appointed  in  his  place  by  the  in- 
vader Eupator;  but  the  Jews  did  not  acknowledge  him  (II  Mac.  xiv: 
3-7),  and  Judas  was  now  recognized  as  their  only  sovereign.  That 
year,  B.  C.  163,  Seleuciciso,  was  the  era  of  established  Maccabean  su- 
premacy. 

g  10.  (b.)  The  57  years  of  Maccabean  supremacy,  until  the  "put- 
ting on  of  the  diadem."  This  period  is  made  up  by  Josephus  as  fol- 
lows: 

B.  c. 
163     ="150"  (12,   ix.  3) 

Judas  Mac.  till  Alcimus  dth "3  yrs" — 

160     (Ant.  20,  x,  i)* 

after  "  "3  yrs" — 

157     (Ant.  12,  xi,  2)  XX 

Jonathan  in  the  interim "4  yrs" (Ant.  13,  ii,  3) 

153     ="160"  (13,  ii,  i) 

"        after         "        10   yrs  — 

143    ="170"  (13,  vi,    7) 

Simon '  '8th — 

136     (Ant.  13,  vii,  4)^ 

Hyrcanus  I "30  yrs" 

106     (Ant.  20,  X,  i)f 

57  yrs 

*At  12,  X  :   6,  it  is  wrongly  "4  years." 

tAt  13,  x:  7,  it  is  wrongly  "31  years." 

$It  reads  "in  all  8  years,"  including  Jonathan's  captivity  (13,  vi :  2). 

XX\\  20,  X :  I,  this  is  made  an  interregnum  ,•'.  c,  without  high-priests  "7  years,"  till  B. 
C.  153,  Jonathan  being  ruler  "these  seven  years,"  and  high-priest  also  10  years  more. 
Also  I  Mac.  ix:  18,  56  makes  Judas  die  before  Alcimus. 


*The  citations  i,  2,  3,  at  5^3  show,  that  the  "414  years"  date  to 
Eupator  was  reduced  by  2,  by  5,  and  by  7  years,  to  give  the  several 
special  dates  of  Eupator's  predecessor,  Epiphanes.  For,  the  Seleucic 
"150,  148,  145,  143,"  were  the  years  B.  C.  163,  165,  168,  170;  so  that 
the  desolating  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  began  in  B.  C.  170,  or  7  years 
before  the  "414  years"  expired,  /.  t-.,  after  407  years,  called  the 
"408th"  year.     {See  Restor.  of  Jos.,  i\4cit.  /,  4,  tvui  ^ji-jj.) 


114  PERIOD    F 

§  II.  (c.)  "The  126  years"  of  Maccabean  supremacy  until  Herod. 
Besides  the  foregoing  57  years,  there  are  contained  69  other  years, 

thus: 

B.  C. 

After  Menelaus 57  yrs 

106 

.  Aristobulus,  diadem "i  year" —     (Ant.  13,  xi,  3) 

■>"  Alexander "27"th —     (Ant.  13,  xv,  5)* 

"1  79 

;+  Alexandra "9  yrs" —     (Ant.  13,  xvi,  6) 

^  70 

c  Hyr.  &  Aristobulus 6  yrs —     (Ant.  20,  x,  i)f 

<  64 

.'     (  Hyrcanus  II  ("24  more") "24  yrs" —     (            "           ) 

'^  "  '+° 

:     f  Antigonus "3K  yrs" —     (  "  ) 

37 

69  yrs 

After  Menelaus,  total "126  yrs" —     (Ant.  14,  xvi,  4) 

Herod,  ("37  after  Hyr.") "34th" —     (Ant.  17,  viii,  i)t 

B.  C.  4 

*It  is  given  "27  years,"  but  this  includes  the  ignoble  year  of  the  brother  Aristo- 
bulus before  it. 

tit  reads  "3  years  and  6  months,"  which  is  plainly  a  corruption  for  6  years  (and  3 
mo.  of  Hyrcanus?  Ant.  14,  i :  2.)  See  this  correction  in  Prideaux.  Pompey's  con- 
quest of  Jerusalem  thus  comes  B.  C.  64,  /.  c,  at  99  years  of  the  Maccabees,  with  133  on- 
ward to  Titus.     (Prideaux  calls  it  the  early  summer  of  B.  C.  63.) 

JThe  full  "34  years"  and  "37  years"  given  will  bring  Herod's  death  to  B.  C.  3;  but  it 
seems  as  though  it  could  not  be  so  long  after  the  eclipse  of  Mar.  13,  B.  C.  4.  {See  Antiq. 
17,  vi :  4,  note,  and  what  follows.     See  also  our  period  G,  §  96-98.) 

Corroborations. 
t^  12.  (4.)  The  Olympic  dates  of  Josephus  prove  that  our  exhibit  of 
his  reckoning  is  correct,  as  above.  Thus,  examining  his  eight  in- 
stances of  such  dating, :}::|:  as  shown  in  the  table  here  (at  ^4),  we  find  but 
one  definite  Olympic  year  specified,  viz.,  Olym.  177:  3=707,  which 
year  must  have  begun  in  June,  B.  C.  70,  since  Olympic  year  i  began  in 
June,  B.  C.  776.  Taking  this,  then,  as  the  test  of  all  his  Olympic  dates, 
we  find  six  of  the  nine  in  agreement  with  his  other  dates  (by  Seleucic 
years,  by  reigns,  and  by  Sabbatics);  namely,  at  a  Olympic  years  609, 

707.  713,  740,  746,  767- 

But  at  the  Olympic  3'ear  641  he  is  plainly  wrong,  as  Whiston  has 
pointed  out;  Josephus'  "Olympiad  162"  beginning  with  year  645, 
should  certainly  read  "Olympiad  161"  beginning  with  year  641. 
Furthermoi'e,  the  Olympic  year  612  is  one  yrar  too  small  for  his 
"Olym.  154,"  and  the  Olympic  year  737  is  one  year  too  A/r^t' for  his 


XXW.&  has  a  ninth  instance,  at  Ap.  I,  21,  viz.,  the  death  of  Alexan- 
der "in  the  114th  Olympiad,  /.  e..  May  22,  B.  C.  323.     (Hales.) 


EXILE    AND    AFTER  115 

"  Olym.  184."  These  two  cases  of  one  year  error  in  opposite  directions 
prove,  that  we  have  him  right,  and  that  his  three  errors  are  either  cor- 
ruptions, or  mistakes  of  a  single  unit  in  the  number  of  the  Olympiad 
in  these  two  cases.  On  the  whole,  we  may  conclude  from  these  nine 
uses  of  the  Olympic  dating,  about  the  only  ones  occurring  in  Josephus, 
that  he  was  not  particularly  an  expert  in  the  use  of  that  Olympic  era, 
which  was  not  very  familiar  to  the  Jews.  But  he  gives  enough  accu- 
rate dating  of  this  sort,  to  demonstrate  our  exhibit  of  him  as  correct. 

^  13.  (5.)  The  Sabbatic  Dates  of  Josephus  further  corroborate  all 
our  adjustments  of  him  as  exact  and  accurate.  He  describes  at  least 
fotcr  Sabbatic  years  within  140  years'  time,  as  seen  in  the  table  on  page 
5,  with  the  hostile  invasions  invited  by  them,  and  the  lack  of  food 
caused  by  them,  under  the  judgment  of  heaven.  And  they  all  harmonize 
with  the  datings  we  assign  him,  as  regular  multiples  of  the  returning  7 
years'  interval;  from  B.  C.  163  to  135,  to  37,  to  23,  and  thence  to  A.  D. 
27,  as  each  being  (in  September)  the  close  of  a  Sabbatic  year — and 
the  last  two  being  Jubilee  Sabbatics.*  The  correctness  of  this  is  indi- 
cated by  the  striking  fact,  that  in  the  summer  of  A.  D.  27  (the  first 
year  of  His  ministry),  our  Lord  publicly  read  the  Jubilee  selection  of 
scripture  in  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth  (Lu.  iv:  16-21.)  Nothing  is 
wanting  from  the  demonstration  of  our  exhibit,  as  the  assured  and  in- 
disputable dating  of  Josephus. 

Back  to  the  Captivity. 

^  14.  From  B.  C.  170  backward,  the  dating  of  Josephus  is  very 
vague.  Especially  when  he  has  passed  by  the  Seleucic  Era  (B.  C. 
312),  and  has  given  the  "12  years"  of  Alexander  the  Great  (Ant.  12, 
ii:  i).  who  died  in  May  or  June,  B.  C.  323 — beyond  that  he  is  all 
afloat.  And  we  have  to  depend  almost  entirely  on  Ptolemy's  Canon, 
to  reach  the  dating  of  the  captivity. 

We  thus  find  (by  the  Canon)  that  the  ist  year  of  Cyrus  begun  in 
January  B.  C.  538  (Nabonassan),  so  that  the  conquest  of  Babylon  may 
have  been  some  months  later  than  that.  And  since  there  follows  a 
"  first  year  of  Darius  the  Mede  "  (Dan.  ix:  i,  and  xi:  i),  doubtless  the 
decree  in  favor  of  the  Jews  "in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus"  (Ezra  i:  i), 
was  in  B.  C.  537. 

The  renewal  of  that  decree  in  "  the  2d  year  of  Darius"  Hystaspes 
(Ezra  iv:  24),  is  fixed  to  the  year  B.  C.  520;  and  the  completion  of  the 
second   temple   in   "the  6th  year   of  Darius"   (vi:  15),  was   in  Adar 


*  Prideaux  dates  the  rule  of  Judas  Mac.  from  his  father's  death. 
Hales  puts  it  (as  we  see  Josephus  does)  from  the  death  of  Menelaus. 
when  Judas  was  formally  acknowledged  by  Ant.  Eupator.  And  he 
also  puts  Hyreanus  I  as  beginning  at  B.  C.  136.  because  of  the  Sab- 
batic years,  which  he  says  must  come  at  135  and  163  B.  C,  just  as 
shown  above. 


116  PERIOD    F 

(March)  of  B.  C,  516  (or  515,  if  the  Jews  delayed  the  Babylonian  year 
to  their  own  new  year  in  spring.     §  33. 

The  7th  year  of  Artaxerxes  (Ezra  vii:  7),  when  the  decree  "to  re- 
store Jerusalem  "  was  issued  to  Ezra,  ended  by  the  Canon  in  Decem- 
ber B.  C.  458;  but  probably  some  months  later  by  the  King's  actual 
accession,  namely,  in  B,  C.  457.  So  that,  no  doubt  it  was  in  the 
spring  of  this  Sabbatic  year  (ending  B.  C.  457),  that  Ezra  received  his 
commission.  From  this  decree  the  "  70  weeks  "  of  Daniel  are  reck- 
oned, reaching,  the  first  "7  weeks"  or  49  years  of  restoring  to  B.  C. 
408,  the  next  "  62  weeks  "  or  434  years  to  Christ's  baptism  in  the  early 
spring  of  A.  D.  27  (Jubilee  Sabbatic),  the  whole  "70  weeks"  or  490 
years  to  A.  D.  34,  when  the  gospel  was  opened  to  the  Gentiles.  (See 
period  G,  t^  105,  and  E,  §  68.) 


PART  II. 

Jerusalem  Destroyed  by  Nebuchadxezzar  in  B.  C. 
NOT  588  AS  Generally  Assigned. 


Leading  Evidence. 

?;  15.  All  agree,  that  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar  was  (in  accord- 
ance with  Ptolemy's  Canon)  43  _vears  long,  from  the  January  T/ioth 
(or  Nabonassan  New  Year)  of  B.  C.  604  to  the  January  Thoth  of  B.  C. 
561.* 

Now  it  was  in  summer,  the  middle  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  eighteenth 
year,  by  this  Ptolemaic- Babylonian  reckoning,  that  Jerusalem  was  des- 
troyed; which  event  must  therefore  be  in  B.  C.  587,  not  in  588  as  given 
in  the  vulgar  (or  Usher)  chronology. 

That  it  was  in  the  summer  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  eighteenth  year 
by  the  Babylonian  reckoning,  is  expressly  declared  by  Josephus  in  (zuo 
of  his  works,  this  being  the  only  numbering  which  he  gives.  Antiq. 
10.  viii:  5.  Versus  Apion  i:  21.  He  gives  Nebuchadnezzar  only  43 
years  of  reign  (Antiq.  10,  xi:  i);  thus  following  the  Babylonian  reckon- 
ing of  Ptolemy's  Canon,  so  that  his  eighteenth  year  of  Neb.  is  Baby- 
lonian reckoning  or  B.  C.  587. 

Moreover,  Josephus  expressly  tells  us  (Vs.  Ap.  i:  21),  that  "in  our 
books  (the  O.  T.)  if  is  ivritten,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  in  the  eighteenth 
year  of  his  reign  laid  our  temple  waste."  Where  in  the  Old  Testament 
is  this  written  ?  It  is  at  Jer.  lii:  29;  and  this  statement  of  Josephus 
concerning  it,  proves  that  we  have  here  the  Babylonian  reckoning  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  reign — and  that  the  capturing  here  spoken  of  is  that 
connected  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (as  given  at  II  Ki.  xxv:  g-ii; 
II  Chron.  xxxvi:  ig,  20;  Jer.  xxxix:  7-9;  lii:  11-15). 

That  the  destruction  of  the  citv  was  thus  in  the  summer  near  the 


*We  have  found  only  Schwartz  calling  this  in  question,  and  putting 
it  B.  C.  605  to  562.  But  he  gives  no  proof,  except  his  novel  theory,  that 
Ptolemy's  Canon  has  all  its  dates  from  the  Thoth  after  (not  before) 
accession. 


lis  PERIOD    F 

middle  of  the  Babylonian  year,  appears  not  only  from  Joseph  us  (as 
above),  but  also  from  scripture.  ( II  Ki.  xxv:  8-11;  Jer.  xxxix:  2;  xli:  i;  lii: 
5-7-  12.) 

Further  Proof. 

§  16.  Josephus  (Antiq.  10,  ix:  7)  says,  that  "in  the  fifth  year  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  was  the  twenty-third  of  the  reign 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  he  [by  his  captains]  took  captive  those  that  were 
there  (in  Egypt — II  Ki.  xxv:  26),  and  led  them  away  to  Babylon."  This 
is  the  very  thing  asserted  of  this  "twenty-third  year"  of  Babylonian 
reckoning,  here  at  Jer.  lii:  30.     (See  xliii:  7-12;  xliv:  27,  28.) 

Again,  as  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  eleven  years  (of  Zedekiah's  reign) 
after  the  beginning  of  Jehoiachin's  captivity,  therefore,  the  twenty- 
fifth  year  of  that  captivity  corresponds  with  the  fourteenth  year  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem;  just  as  it  is  declared  in  Ezek,  xl:  i. 
Moreover,  as  thus  Jehoiachin's  captivity  began  eleven  years  before  the 
eighteenth  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  it  began  in  the  seventh  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. And  this  is  the  very  thing  asserted  of  this  "seventh  year" 
of  Babylonian  reckoning,  here  at  Jer.  lii:  28.  We  have  seen  that 
Josephus  expressly  affirms  this  to  be  the  correct  view  of  this  lii:  29. 
To  escape  it,  Whiston  most  strangely  says  (Note  in  Jos.,  Ap.  i:  21), 
"This  number  in  Josephus,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  destroyed  the  tem- 
ple in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign,  is  a  mistake  in  the  nicety  of 
chronology;  for  it  was  in  the  nineteenth" — /.  i'.,  by  Jewish  reckoning. 
But  see  the  fallacy  of  this. 

§  17.  (i.)  Josephus  does  not  follow  that  Jewish  reckoning  of  Neb- 
uchadnezzar, in  any  of  his  datings,  and  therefore  could  not  rightly  give 
the  "  nineteenth  year."  (2.)  He  gives  it  as  in  the  "  eighteenth  of  Neb- 
uchadnezzar" not  only  here  but  also  in  his  other  work,  as  seen  above, 
consistently  adhering  always  to  that  Babylonian  number.  (3.)  He 
found  this  "eighteenth  Nebuchadnezzar"  (he  says)  given  in  his  Bible 
for  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  viz.,  at  this  Jer.  lii:  29.  To  say  that 
Josephus  here  mistakes,  is  to  say  that  he  everywhere  mistakes,  and 
that  the  Bible  itself  mistakes,  and  that  there  was  no  Babylonian  reck- 
oning, but  that  the  Jewish  reckoning  alone  was  correct.  On  the  con- 
trary, Josephus  is  right.  He  gives  only  the  Babylonian  reckoning  (one 
}'ear  different  from  the  Jewish);  and  he  gives  it  correctly,  taking  it  from 
the  book  of  Jeremiah  which  has  it  correctly.  Its  "  eighteenth  Nebu- 
chadnezzar "  for  the  capturing  of  Jerusalem  and  its  people  is  the  true 
Babylonian  date  for  its  fall,  which  necessarily  is  B.  C.  587. 

Yet  again,  this  true  reckoning  makes  the  thirty-seventh  year  of 
Jehoiachin's  captivity  correspond  with  the  (7  -f  37=)  forty-fourth  year  of 
Nebuchadnezzar.  But  as  Nebuchadnezzar  reigned  only  forty-three 
years,  his  forty-fourth  year  was  really  the  first  year  of  his  successor 
Evil  Merodach,  B.  C.  561;  just  as  asserted  of  this  "  thirty-seventh  year 


EXILE    AND    AFTER  119 

of  Jehoiachiu's  captivity  "  here  in  Jer.  lii:  31,  as  taken  from  II  Kings  xxv: 
27. 

^  18.  Once  more,  this  makes  the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Jehoi- 
achin's  captivity  correspond  with  the  (7  +  27^  thirty-fourth  year  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  or  B.  C.  571,  when  he  had  just  finished  the  thirteen 
years'  seige  of  Tyre  (Ezek.  xxix:  17,  18),  viz.,  at  the  end  of  B.  C.  572. 
The  correctness  of  this  date  is  seen  from  the  reckoning  of  Josephus  (Vs. 
Ap.,  i:  21),  where  he  says  that  "on  the  seventh  year  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar he  began  to  beseige  Tyre  for  thirteen  years."  This  makes  the 
taking  of  Tyre  (6  -|-  13)  nineteen  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (/.  <;■.,  of  his 
career  from  his  final  invasion  of  all  Syria,  Judea,  and  Egypt,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  B.  C.  590) — namely,  at  the  close  of  B.  C.  572,  as  here  found. 

The  same  is  seen  from  Philostratus  (in  Josephus,  Vs.  Ap.  i:  21,  and 
Ant.  10,  xi:  i),  who  says,  "Nebuchadnezzar  beseiged  Tyre  for  thirteen 
years  in  the  days  of  Ithobal  their  king;  after  him  reigned  Baal  ten 
years  (followed  by  reigns  of )  two  months  and  ten  months,  and  three 
months,  and  six  years,  and  one  year,  and  four  years,  then  Hiram 
twenty  years;  under  his  reign  Cyrus  became  king  of  Persia" — viz.,  in 
his  ' '  fourteenth  year, "  adds  Josephus.  This  fourteenth  year  of  Hiram 
as  the  first  of  Cyrus,  is  here  made  to  be  the  thirty-sixth  after  the  taking 
of  Tyre  at  the  end  of  B.  C.  572,  viz.,  the  beginning  of  B.  C.  536;  when, 
in  the  view  of  Josephus  and  the  Jews,  Cyrus  issued  his  decree  in  his 
first  year  after  the  death  of  "Darius  the  Mede."  "So  that  (adds 
Josephus)  the  whole  interval  is  fifty-four  years  besides  three  months;" 
i-  e-  (55+13  +  2  years  of  Nebuchadnezzar),  "fifty  years"  from  the 
end  of  B.  C.  537  back  to  587  or  (  +  4=)  "  fifty-four  years"  to  the  end 
of  B.  C.  591. 

tj  19.  Prideaux  treats  Josephus  as  if  beginning  Cyrus  with  the  fall 
of  Babylon  in  B.  C.  538;  and  so  he  makes  the  thirty-sixth  year  preced- 
ing carry  the  fall  of  Tyre  back  to  B.  C.  583,  and  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
to  B.  C.  588.  But  that  Josephus  puts  the  Cyrus  decree  at  the  begin- 
ning of  B.  C.  36,  appears  from  Vs.  Ap.  i:  21,  where  he  says:  "  In  the 
eighteenth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign  he  laid  our  temple  desolate, 
and  so  it  laid  in  that  state  of  obscurity  fo7'  fifty  yeajs;  but  that  in  the 
second  year  of  the  reign  of  Cyrus  its  foundations  were  laid,''  etc.,  /.  <-., 
the  decree  for  that  purpose  having  been  issued  in  the  first  year  of 
Cyrus.  (See  Ezra  i:  i,  comp.  with  iii:  8-13.)  This  "fifty  years"  cer- 
tainly begins  with  B.  C.  587,  and  therefore  ends  with  B.  C.  537,  as  we 
have  seen.  The  decree  itself  Josephus  puts  in  "  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  '" 
(Ant.  II,  i:  i),  /.  e.,  in  B.  C.  537,  by  no  means  so  early  as  B.  C.  538. 

Corrected  View  of  Jer.  lii:  28-30. 
J;  20,    Jeremiah  proper  ends  with  the  51st  chapter,  as  seen  by  its  last 
verse.     The  52d  chapter  was  added  as  a  summary,  being  taken  from 
II  Kings  xxiv:  18-25,  3o;  except  that  for  ver.  22-26  in  Kings  is  interpo- 


120  PERIOD    F 

lated  the  summary  of  ver.  28-30  in- Jeremiah.  This  interpolation  is 
evidently  a  Babylonian  enumeration  of  the  captives,  and  therefore  is 
expressed  with  Babylonian  numbering  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  years  (7 
and  18  and  23,  for  8' and  19  and  24),  instead  of  the  Hebrew  numbering 
found  in  the  rest  of  the  Bible. 

The  British  Commentary  (of  Jamieson,  Fausset  and  Brown)  rightly 
assigns  the  seventh  and  eighteenth  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as  here  given, 
to  the  beginning  and  end  of  Zedekiah's  reign.  But  it  fails  to  give  the 
true  reason  why  these  numbers  are  here  used  in  place  of  eighth  and 
nineteenth  employed  elsewhere  (See  Ver.  12).  Its  explanation  con- 
cerning '(h^  fewness  of  the  captives  here  enumerated  is  in  part  correct. 
Ver.  28,  29,  "Nebuchadnezzar  carried  away,"  give  only  the  official 
captives,  sent  or  coming  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  headquartei^s,  and  by 
\\vm.  personally  i'd^f.en  to  Babylon,  as  seen  at  II  Kings  xxiv:  12,  15,  and 
II  Chron.  xxxvi:  10,  and  Jer.  xxxix:  4-7,  and  lii:  7-11,  with  Josephus  10, 
viii:  2;  not  including  the  greater  numbers  carried  off  by  means  of  his 
generals,  as  seen  at  II  Kings  xxiv:  14,  16,  andxxv:  11,  with  Jer.  xxxix:  9, 
and  lii:  15  (also  Ver.  30). 

§  21.  From  an  oversight  of  the  fact  here  brought  out,  that  Jer.  lii: 
28,  30,  is  a  later  addendum  drawn  from  Babylonian  data,  being  the  list 
of  Nebuchadnezzar's  own  official  captives,  has  arisen  the  error  of 
Usher,  Lowth  and  the  vulgar  chronology  generally;  which  treats  the 
"  7th  "  and  "  i8th  "  here  given  as  the  Hebi^ew  numbering  of  years.  So 
that  they  are  thus  made  to  refer  to  some  unrelated  capturings  one  year 
before  the  great  capturings  of  the  "  8th  "  and  "19th"  years  given  in  II 
Ki.  xxiv:  12,  and  xxv:  8  (copied  at  Jer.  lii:  12). 

Thus  Lowth  (in  Scott):  "Archbishop  Usher  supposes  that  this  Jer. 
lii:  28,  30,  gives  an  account  of  the  lesser  captivities  which  the  Jews 
suffered  under  Neb.,  whereas  there  were  three  others,  viz:  in  the  ist 
year  of  his  reign,  in  the  8th  year,  and  in  the  19th  year  when  the  city 
was  destroyed."  Prideaux  even  strangely  calls  this  "  7th  year  "  (of  ver. 
28)  the  7th  of  Jehoiakim  instead  of  Neb.;  although  it  is  the  latter  alone 
referred  to,  and  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  former  in  all  the  context. 
To  such  marvelous  devices  does  a  missing  of  the  truth  lead  on. 

Now  note,  on  the  contrary,  that  neither  in  the  Bible  nor  in  any 
other  history  have  we  the  least  hint  of  any  such  carrying  away  of  cap- 
tives in  those  extra  imagined  years;  nor  do  the  circumstances  allow  such 
suppositions.  And  above  all  it  is  impossible  to  regard  the  book  of  Jer- 
emiah as  here  summing  up  the  captives  by  announcing:  '"This  is  the 
people  whom  Neb.  carried  away  captive,"  and  then  naming  only  three 
"lesser  captivities"  with  the  three  principal  (in  fact  the  only  real) 
capturings  entii-ely  unnoticed! !  It  is  plain,  that  the  capturings  here  given 
are  at  the  closed  reigns  of  Jekoiakim  and  Zedekiah,  11  years  apart, 
together  with  the  later  deportations,  at  which  thi'ee  times  occurred  the 
only  general  capturings  known;  since  that  of  Dan.  i:  3,  was  only  a 
selection  of  "children." 


EXILE    AND    AFTER  121 

JOSEPHUS'    "23DNeB."' 

«;  22.  Although  Josephus  gives  the  final  capturing  of  the  Jews  as 
'■'■on  the  jth  year  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  was  the 23d 
year  of  the  reign  of  Neb."  by  Babylonian  reckoning;  yet  he  probabh' 
thought  of  it  as  only  four  full  years,  or  at  the  very  beginning  of  the 
Babylonian  23d  (or  end  of  the  Jewish  23d),  putting  the  Babylonian 
j-ear  as  closing  along  with  the  Jewish  year  (in  September),  only  i  year 
later.  So  he  made  the  Babylonian  ist  of  Neb.  parallel  with  the  5th  of 
Jehoiakim,  B.  C.  605-4.     (See  Antiq.:  10.  vi:  i.) 

This  '*  23d  of  Neb."  as  in  the  autumn  of  B.  C.  583  for  4  years  after 
the  destruction  of  the  city),  was  the  time  Jews^'-f///;;-(7//_^//  leaving  Pal- 
estine for  Egypt,  there  to  be  captured  and  carried  to  Babylon.  For  the 
migration  into  Egypt,  stated  at  II  Ki.  xxv:  26,  Jer.  xliii:  7,  was  doubt- 
less in  successive  bands  going  to  different  localities  (xliv:  i,  26)  during 
four  years;  until  a  last  flight  at  rumor  of  the  new  coming  Babylonian 
invasion  of  23d  Neb.     (See  our  Restor.  of  Jos.,  §  29.) 

Hebrew  Reckoning  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

)^  23.  The  Hebrews  at  Jerusalem  began  the  reckoning  of  Neb.  's  reign 
earlier,  from  his  first  coming  to  besiege  Jerusalem  before  the  death  of 
his  father;  namely,  in  the  summer  of  B.  C.  606,  over  a  year  from  the 
Babylonian  beginning  of  his  reign. 

This  Jewish  beginning  of  Neb.  was  near  the  close  of  the  3d  year  of 
Jehoiakim,  as  stated  in  Dan.  i:  i;  II  Ki.  xxiv:  i.  So  that  the  years  of 
Neb.  were  computed  along  with  the  Jewish  civil  years,  the  4th  of  Je- 
hoiakim being  called  the  ist  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  as  said  at  Jer.  xxv:  i, 
and  xlvi:  2,  and  beginning  from  September  B.  C.  606.  (So  Prideaicx 
con  nee.)  Thus  Neb's  reign  was  made  over  44  (instead  of  43)  years;  and 
from  its  beginning  in  B.  C.  606  to  the  Cyrus  decree  (at  the  end  of  B.  C. 
537)  there  were  70  years  of  servitude,  as  foretold  at  its  beginning. 
(Jer.  xxv:  i,  9,  11.)  The  Bible  is  mostly  written  with  this  Hebrew  reck- 
oning of  Neb.,  the  only  exception  being  Jer.  lii:  2S-30,  as  shown  above 
— unless  we  add  also  Dan.  ii:  i. 

Study  of  Daniel  ii:  i. 
^  24.  Most  expositors  interpret  "  the  2d  year  of  the  reign  of  Neb- 
uchadnezzar," in  Dan  ii:  i,  as  meaning  his  2d  Babylonian  year,  B.  C. 
603.  But  this  seems  hardly  to  comport  with  chapter  i,  or  with  this 
chapter  2,  verse  13,  25,  26,  48.  How  could  Daniel,  only  3  years  after  his 
boyhood  of  chapter  i,  be  i^egularly  numbered  among  the  wise  nieti  of 
Babj'lon?  and  yet  so  soon,  within  a  few  weeks  after,  i:  ig,  20,  be  all  un- 
sought for  by  Neb.  in  his  extremity?  and  so  little  known  and  understood 
by  him?  and  how  improbable,  that  a  youth  (not  over  18)  was  then  made 
a  great  jnan  and  ruler  over  the  whole  province  of  Babylon,  and  chief 


123  PERIOD    F 

of  the  governors."  Moi-eover,  the  complete  supremacy  of  Neb.  de- 
scribed in  verses  37,  38,  seems  better  to  fit  him  after  his  later  conquests. 
§  25.  This  dilemma  is  escaped  by  Josephus;  who  (in  Antiq.  10,  x.  3) 
renders  it,  as  "  two  years  after  the  destruction  of  Egypt,"  and  he  else- 
where (Vs.  Ap.  i,  21)  dates  the  years  of  Neb.  from  B.  C,  590.  (See 
here  §18.)  The  meaning  might  be  (as  in  the  LXX)  "the  second  year 
of  supremacy,  that  is,  over  Egypt,  or  over  the  nations  generally,  or 
over  Jerusalem  destroyed  in  B.  C.  587.  This  would  well  fit  Ezek.  xiv: 
12-20,*  and  Ezek.  xxviii:  3.f 

Scripture  Evidence. 

§  26.  The  Hebrew  reckoning  of  Nebuchadnezzar  is  seen  at  Jer.  xxxii: 
I,  which  says,  "the  loth  year  of  Zedekiah  was  the  iSth  year 
of  Nebuchadnezzar";  also  in  Jer.  xxv:  i,  3,  which  says,  "the  4th  year 
of  Jehoiakim  was  the  ist  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar,"  being  "the  three 
and  twentieth  year  from  the  13th  year  of  Josiah."  Now,  Josiah's  31 
years  with  12  whole  years  taken  out  leave  ig,  and  3  whole  years  of  his 
son  Jehoiakim  added  make  22  whole  years,  giving  the  4th  of  Jehoiakim 
as  the  23d  year  from  Josiah's  13th — just  as  hei-e  stated. 

This  made  the  nth  of  Jehoiakim  to  be  the  8th  of  Neb.,  at  the  close 
of  which  nth  year  (in  summer)  Jehoiachin  was  taken  captive,  as  stated 

*Ezekiers  first  reference  to  Daniel  as  already  celebrated,  is  near 
or  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  For  his  first  15  chapters  reach 
from  the  5th  year  of  Jehoiachin's  captivity  (i:  2),  past  the  6th  year 
(viii:  i),  on  through  the  nth  (xii:  26-27),  and  still  on  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  (xiii:  i,  5,  10,  16).  After  which,  at  chap,  xvi,  a  new  series 
goes  back  to  an  earlier  date,  and  forward  again  to  the  7th  year  (xx:  i), 
and  to  the  9th  year  (xxiv:  i),  and  the  nth  year  (xxvi:  i),  and  afterward. 
So  that  chapter  xiv  may  thus  come  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
at  about  B.  C.  585;  as  seen  at  verses  21-23,  "When  I  send  my  judgments" 
as  I  have  ^  "a  remnant  shall  be  brought — they  shall  come  forth  unto 
you  [to  Bablyon,  as  in  Jer.  Hi:  30] — and  ye  shall  be  comforted  concern- 
ing the  evil  that  I  Jiave  brought  upon  Jerusalem,"  and  at  xv:  5-7,  "they 
shall  go  out  from  one  fire,  another  fire  shall  devour  them,"  viz:  in 
Egypt  (comp.  Jer.  xlii:  7:11,  and  xliv:  12-14). 

fThis  comparing  of  Tyre  with  Daniel  was  made  long  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  when  the  fame  of  Daniel  was  widely 
spread.  (Dan.  ii:  46-48.)  For  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  are  in  clusters. 
Those  against  Tyre  begin  with  the  26th  chapter:  viz.,  in  the  nth  year 
of  Jehoiachin's  captivity  and  of  Zedekiah's  reign,  Sep.,  B.  C.  588;  and 
they  continue  from  time  to  time  (xxvii:  i;  xxviii:  i;  xi:  20),  until  Tyre  was 
taken  (xxix:  17)  just  before  the  27th  year  beginning  Sep.,  B.  C.  572. 
Then  Egypt  is  treated  from  the  loth  year  (xxix:  i),  with  episode  (ver.  17) 
to  the  nth  year  (xxxi:  i),  and  the  12th  year  (xxxii:  i,  32):  after  which, 
chap,  xxxiii-xl  is  general,  beginning  before  the  12th  year  (xxxiii:  21.) 
As  Ezek.  xxix:  17  is  at  the  27th  year,"  viz.,  B.  C.  472,  the  reference  to 
Daniel  at  xxviii  :  3,  may  well  be  about- B.  C.  580,  not  588  as  Prideaux 
makes  it. 


EXILE    AND    AFTER  123 

in  II  Ki.  x.xiv:  12.  So,  10 years  afterward,  the  loth  of  Zedekiah  was  the 
18th  of  Neb.,  as  given  at  Jer.  xxxii:  i.  And  the  next  year,  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  (in  summer)  near  the  close  of  Zedekiah"s  nth  year 
(Jer.  i:  3)  was  also  the  close  of  Neb.'s  19th  year  in  this  reckoning,  just 
as  given  at  II  Ki.  xxv:  8,  and  copied  at  Jer.  lii:  12. 

As  the  ist  year  of  Neb.  by  this  reckoning  began  with  the  Hebrew 
civil  year,  Sep.,  B.  C.  606,  the  19th  Neb.  thus  ended  19  years  after- 
ward, at  Sep.,  B.  C.  587;  just  before  which,  in  the  summer  of  that  587, 
Jei'usalem  was  destroyed;  for  it  was  in  the  5th  Jewish  month  (or  Aug- 
ust), as  stated  at  II  Ki.  xxv:  8. 

And  thus,  by  both  reckonings  alike,  Jerusalem's  destruction  was  in 
B.  C.  587,  not  588  as  commonly  said;  which  was  25//^  years  before 
Neb.'s  ending  at  the  Jan.  Thoth  of  B.  C.  561,  and  17J4  years  after 
Neb.'s  accession  in  B.  C.  604;  total  43  years. 

Decisive  Verification. 

?;  27.  There  were  22  whole  years  from  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
back  to  the  death  of  Josiah.  For,  Jehoiakim  reigned  11  whole  years 
(including  3  months  interposed,  II  Ki.xxiii  131,36;  II  Chron.xxxvi:2,5);  and 
then  Zedekiah  reigned  11  whole  years  (including  3  mo.  10  days  inter- 
posed,II  Ki.xxiv:  8, 18;  II  Chron.xxxviig,  11;  Jer.i:3.)  Now  these  22  years 
back  to  Josiah  added  to  the  last  18  years  of  Josiah,  give  just  40  years 
from  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  back  to  the  end  of  Josiah's  13th 
year,  at  which  time  Jeremiah's  warning  prophesy  commenced.  (Jer. 
i:  2.) 

From  the  finished  capturing  4><  years  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem (Neb.  23d,  Jer.  lii:  30),  there  were  also  just  40  years  back  to  Jo- 
siah's reformation,  at  the  spring  Passover  of  his  i8th  year,  4>4  years 
after  his  13th  year  ended,  II  Ki.  xxii:  3,  andxxiii:  21-23,  H  Chron.  xxxiv: 
8,  and  xxxv:  i,  17),  from  which  i8th  year  Ezekiel's  warning  prophesy  was 
dated.  For,  he  says  (i:  i,  2),  his  "  30th  year  was  the  5th  year  of  Je- 
hoiachin's  captivity,"  /.  c.,  there  were  25  years  between  his  date  and 
the  capture  of  Jehoiachin,  viz.,  the  11  years  of  Jehoiakim  and  14  years 
of  Josiah's  31  (II  Ki.  xxii:  i,  2;  II  Chron.  xxxiv:  i),  making  his  date  to 
begin  with  Josiah's  i8th  year,  from  B.  C.  623  to  583. 

Now,  Ezekiel  (iv:  6)  assigns  just  these  40  years  for  the  "  iniquity  (or 
hardening)  of  the  house  of  Judah,"  until  the  accomplished  "  siege  of 
Jerusalem"  (verse  7,  8).  This  proves  our  reckoning  of  the  reigns  to  be 
correct. 

?;  28.  But  we  thus  have  19  whole  years  from  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  back  to  the  first  invasion  of  Neb.,  which  was  near  the  close 
of  3  full  years  of  Jehoiakim,  as  shown  before.  That  invasion  was  in 
the  summer,  as  Jerusalem  was  finally  taken  in  the  summer;  so 
that  there  were  even  years.     These  19  years  were  from  B.  C.  587  back 


134  ''  PERIOD    F 

to  B.  C.  6o5  in  summer,  at  which  time  the  4th  of  Jehoiakim  must  com- 
mence, /.  (•.,  with  the  Jewish  civil  year  in  September,  called  also  b}- 
the  Jews  the  ist  year  of  Neb.,  owing  to  his  tJteii  invading  the  land. 
This  brings  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  w&'ax  the.  end  of  Neh.'s  igth 
year  by  the  Hebrew  reckoning  (viz.,  in  the  summer  of  B.  C.  5S7),  just 
as  declared  in  scripture,  and  even  by  Usher  himself  (at  year  3416). 

The  Sabbatic  Year. 

4;  29.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  being  rightly  assigned  to  B.  C. 
587,  near  the  end  of  Zedekiah's  nth  year,  it  follows  that  the  com- 
mencement of  the  siege,  in  the  gth  year  in  the  loth  month  (II  Ki. 
xxv:  i;  Jer.  xxxix:  i,  and  lii:  4;  Ezek.  xxiv:  i),  was  in  December,  B.  C. 
590  (as  set  by  Prideaux  himself);  just  before  which,  in  that  year  590, 
Zedekiah  had  revolted.   (II  Ki.  xxiv:  20;  II  Chron.  xxxvi:  13;  Jer.  lii:  3.) 

So  Josephus  (Antiq.  10,  vii:  3,  4,  and  viii:  i,  2,  5),  "When  Zedek- 
iah had  preserved  the  league  for  8  years,  he  broke  it  *  *  *  the 
king  of   Babylon  made    war    *    *    *    but  departed  from  Jerusalem 

*  *  *  the  false  prophets  deceived  Zedekiah  *  *  *  Jeremiah 
said  they  should  serve  Babylon  seventy  years  *  *  *  Jeremiah 
was  imprisoned  *  *  *  Now  in  the  loth  year  of  Zedekiah  on  the 
loth  day  of  the  month,  the  king  of  Babylon  made  a  second  expedi- 
tion against  Jerusalem,  and  lay  before  it   18  months  and  besieged  it 

*  *  *  a  famine  and  pestilence  *  *  *  siege  18  months  *  *  * 
the  city  was  taken  on  the  9th  day  of  the  4th  month  in  the  nth  year 
of  Zedekiah  *  *  *  in  the  5th  month,  ist  day  in  the  nth  year  of 
Zedekiah,  and  the  i8th  of  Neb.,  he  also  burnt  the  place." 

J^  30.  Now  the  Jewish  Sabbatic  year  ended  with  Zedekiah's  gth  year 
in  September,  B.  C.  590.  For,  according  to  Josephus,  the  year  B.  C. 
137  closed  a  Sabbatic,  as  also  B.  C.  163.  (§  13.)  So  40  Sabbatics  before 
that,  or  280  years,  at  B.  C.  443,  ended  a  Sabbatic  (see  Neh.  x:  31,  that 
year);  and  so,  77  years  before  that,  at  B.  C.  520;  also  10  Sabbatics  be- 
fore that,  at  B.  C.  590.  At  that  time,  Zedekiah,  warned  by  the  prophet, 
proclaimed  libert}'  to  Hebrews  in  servitude,  in  accordance  with  the 
Mosaic  law  (Jer.  xxxiv:  8,  9);  and  also  himself  declared  independence 
of  Babylon.  But  when  Nebuchadnezzar,  after  being  thus  brought 
upon  him  (ver.  i),  had  left  for  a  time  to  meet  the  king  of  Egypt  (ver, 
21  and  xxxvii:  n),  Zedekiah  grew  arrogant,  and  again  enslaved  the 
freedmen;  for  which  Jeremiah  rebuked  him  (xxxiv:  11-22)  in  B.  C.  589. 
(See  period  E,  §  69-74.) 

Then  Neb.  returned,  just  one  year  after  his  previous  siege  began, 
as  Josephus  states,  viz.,  in  Dec,  B.  C.  5S9,  the  loth  year  of  Zedekiah 
having  begun  in  Sep.  along  with  the  i8th  of  Neb.  by  Jewish  reckoning 
(Jer.  xxxii:  i,  2);  and  after  18  months'  siege  he  destroyed  the  city,  in 
the  4th  and  5th  months,  or  summer  of  B.  C.  587.   So  then,  from  Zede- 


EXILE    AND    AFTER  125 

kiah's  revolt  and  Neb.'s  siege  at  the  close  of  the  Sabbatic,  B.  C.  590, 
there  were  just  70  years  of  land-sabbath  (II  Chron.  xxxvi:  13,  20,  21), 
to  the  close  of  the  Sabbatic,  B.  C.  520,  the  2d  of  Darius,  when  his  de- 
cree practically  released  the  land. 

^  31.  Now  the  fact  of  the  Sabbatic  in  B.C.  590,  fixing  the  arrival  of 
Neb.  and  so  the  beginning  of  the  9th  Zed.  to  that  year,  and  aggravat- 
ing the  consequent  famine  (Jer.  xxi:  2,  9),  compels  the  ending  of  nth 
Zed.  and  the  destruction  of  the  city  (Jer.  i:  3)  to  be  in  B.  C.  587,  over 
30  months  afterward.  And  when  Prideaux  makes  the  taking  of  the 
city  only  some  18  months  afterward,  he  is  confounding  the  second  ap- 
proach of  Neb.  after  having  gone  to  meet  the  Egyptians  (which  Jo- 
sephus  expressly  says  was  18  months  before  the  conquest,  viz.,  in  loth 
Zed.  or  Dec.  i,  B.C.  589),  with  his/r^/  coming  a  year  before,  in  thegth 
Zed.  loth  month,  or  Dec.  B.  C.  590.  (This  loth  month  from  spring 
must  not  be  misunderstood,  as  the  loth  month  of  the  year's  reign, 
which  began  in  September.  Confusion  on  this  point  has  made  much 
of  the  current  mistaken  reckoning. ) 

Further  Confirmation. 

§32.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  being  rightly  assigned  to  B.  C. 
587,  there  are  just  70  years  of  fasting  for  the  temple  desolation,  from 
this  time  to  the  finishing  of  the  second  temple  with  the  year  B.  C.  517, 
as  stated  in  Zech.  vii:  5.  For  it  was  at  the  beginning  of  B.  C.  516 
(as  set  by  Hales)  that  the  dedication  of  Ezra  vi:  15-19.  took  place,  not 
in  B.  C.  515,  as  set  by  the  Usher  Chronology. 

The  ist  year  of  Darius,  by  Plotemy's  Canon  was  the  Nabonassau 
year  of  (365  days)  from  Jan.  i  to  Dec.  31,  B.  C.  521  (Julian  Bissextile), 
each  of  those  dates  being  that  year  the  Egyptian  Thoth  or  new  year's 
day.  (^  2.)  We  learn  from  Ezra  iv:  24,  etc.,  that  the  temple  was  re- 
commenced in  the  second  year  of  Darius  (B.  C.  520),  and  from  Hag. 
i:  I- 15,  we  learn  that  it  was  commenced  in  the  sixth  Jewish  month  of 
that  year,  viz.,  Elul  (about  September)  Haggai  prophesied  in  that 
month,  and  also  in  the  seventh  and  ninth  months  (Hag.  ii:  i,  10,  18, 
20). 

In  the  fourth  year  of  Darius,  "in  the  fourth  day  of  the  ninth 
month,  even  in  Chisleu,  (Zech.  vii:  1-5),  /.  e.,  in  December,  of  B.  C. 
518,  Zechariah  received  a  Divine  message  concerning  the  fasts,  which, 
had  then  been  observed  "these  seventy  years;"  i.  e.,  seventy  times 
annually  from  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  B.  C.  587-518  inclusive. 

And  in  the  sixth  year  of  Darius,  on  the  third  day  of  the  month 
Adar  (the  twelfth  Jewish  month),  /.  c,  about  the  end  of  February,  the 
temple  was  finished;  its  dedication  being  closely  connected  with  the 
following  passover  about  the  beginning  of  April.  (Ezra  vi:  15-22.) 
This  was  B.  C.  516,  the  sixth  of  Darius  having  begun  with  the  Baby- 


126  PERIOD    F 

Ionian  year,  December  30,  before.  So  that^the  seventy  years  of  temple 
ruin  reached  from  the  summer  of  B,  C.  587  to  the  summer  of  B.  C. 
517,  a  few  months  before  the  new  temple  was  dedicated. 

§  ^^.  Prideaux  and  others  in  the  vulgar  chronology,  make  this^ 
dedication  to  be  in  the  spring  of  B.  C.  575,  considering  "the  sixth 
year  of  Darius  "  here  as  delayed  \.o  end  with  the  Jewish  year  at  Nisan 
(or  March).  But  this  is  not  probable.  For,  although  Zech.  i:  1-7, 
looks  like  such  a  delay  of  the  Babylonian  year  there  is  no  other  in- 
stance of  such  delayed  reckoning;  certainly  not  in  Ezra.  On  the  con- 
trary, Jer.  i:  3,  is  decisive  that  "  the  fifth  month  "  was  near  "the  end 
of  the  year  "  of  a  reigning  king;  and  Nehemiah  (i:  i  &  2:  i),  makes  the 
ninth  Jewish  month  (Decembei-)  and  the  following  first  Jewish  month 
(April)  to  be  both  in  the  same  20th  year  of  Artaxerxes  at  the  Persiaii 
court;  which  therefore  does  not  begin  with  the  Jewish  new  year,  but 
back  as  early  as  the  Egyptian  new  year  or  Thot/i,  then  at  December 
12th.  This  plainly  settles  it,  that  the  reckoning  of  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah, who  lived  at  the  Persian  court,  was  the  Persian  reckoning,  not 
delayed,  but  back  as  far  as  from  Thoth  to  Thoth.  Since,  therefore,  it 
is  Ezra  who  says  that  the  temple  was  finished  in  "the  twelfth  month 
which  was  in  the  sixth  year  of  Darius,"  he  must  mean  that  twelfth 
Jewish  month  which  came  in  the  sixth  Persian  or  actual  year  of  Da- 
rius (as  early  as  December,  B.  C.  517  to  December,  516),  namely,  the 
March  of  B.  C.  516,  .not  of  515  as  Prideaux  alleges;  which  latter  is 
over  seventy-one  and  one-half  years  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
in  B.  C.  787. 

Indeed,  Prideaux  himself  (at  year  561),  bases  his  chronology  on  the 
fact,  that  the  Jews  reckoned  the  years  of  the  Bab.  kings  as  beginning 
before  their  own  vernal  new  year;  thus  making  the  37th  year  of  their 
own  king  Jehoiachin  to  end  in  the  first  year  of  Evil  Merodach.  The 
Zech.  i:  1-7,  is  very  likely  a  relict  of  that  Jewish  antedating  (not  delay) 
of  Babylonian  regnal  years  as  coincident  with  the  Hebrew  regnal  or 
civil  year  (from  September)  which  prevailed  before  (as  we  have  seen) 
in  the  days  of  Nebudchadnezzar.  Thus  viewed,  Zech.  i:  i,  is,  in  the 
last  part  of  the  actual  first  year  of  Darius,  and  verse  7  is  near  the 
beginning  of  the  actual  second  of  Darius,  when  as  yet  the  temple  was 
not  recommenced  (see  vers.  12-16)  of  which  there  is  no  intimation  till  a 
later  day  (iv:  i-g). 

§  34.  In  September  of  this  second  year  of  Darius,  B.  C.  520, 
ended  the  Sabbatic  year,  just  seventy  years  (as  said  in  Zech  i:  12) 
after  the  Sabbatic  of  B.  C.  590,  when  Neb.  invaded  the  land.  And  as 
then,  it  was  followed  by  a  famine.  This  was  employed  by  Haggai  (II: 
6- 1 1,  and  ii:  16-19)  ^.s  an  argument  for  recommencing  the  temple. 
That  work  was  accordingly  entered  upon  before  this  2d  of  Darius  ex- 
pired (Hag.  i:  i,  12-15,  and  ii:  i,  10,  18,  20);  although  some  pleaded  "the 
time  is  not  come,  the  time  that  the  Lord's  house  should  be  built,"  /.  e.. 


EXILE    AND    AFTER  127 

the  seventy  years  of  its  actual  desolation  (from  B.  C.  587)  were  not  yet 
out.  This  would  hardly  have  been  said  had  the  interval  been  longer, 
from  B.  C.  588  as  commonly  alleged. 

After  this,  "in  the  4th  year  of  King  Darius,  in  the  fourth  day  of 
the  ninth  month,  even  in  Chisleu,"  /.  e.,  in  Nov.,  B.  C.  518,  Zech.  (vii: 
1-5),  received  a  divine  message  concerning  the  fasts  "  in  the  fifth  and 
seventh  month"  (as  well  as  the  fourth  and  tenth  months,  viii:  19), 
which  had  then  been  observed  "  these  seventy  years."  Now  the  fasts 
of  the  fourth,  fifth  and  seventh  months  were  for  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem, and  of  the  temple,  and  of  the  remnant  under  Gedaliah  (II 
Ki.  xxv:  2,  3,  8,  25),  in  July,  August  and  October  of  B.  C.  587;  and  the 
seventieth  recurrence  of  these  (including  the  events  themselves)  was  in 
the  year  B.  C.  518,  when  Zechariah  (vii:  1-5)  thus  spoke  of  it.  The  fast 
of  the  tenth  month  (viii:  19)  was  for  the  assault  of  Neb.  in  December, 

B.  C.  590  (II  Ki.  xxv:  i,  etc.),  and  his  renewed  seige  in  December,  B. 

C.  589  (Jer.  xxxiv:  22,  and  xxxii:  i,  2),  and  had  been  observed  just 
seventy  years,  in  November,  B.  C.  518,  when  Zechariah  (vii:  1-5)  gave 
that  duration  of  the  fasts.  Thus  all  the  datings  were  reconciled  by  our 
corrected  view. 

f5  35.  And  so,  reviewing  our  study  here,  we  see  that  the  captivity 
was  cumulative,  having  not  only  a  seventy  years  of  capture  from  B.  C. 
606  to  536  the  return;  but  then  also  a  seventy  years  of  land- Sabbath 
from  the  Sabbatic,  B.  C.  590  to  the  Sabbatic,  B.  C.  520,  of  recultivation; 
and  still  further  a  seventy  years  of  desolation  from  the  ruin  to  the  re- 
building of  the  temple,  B.  C.  587  to  517-16.  * 

Origin  of  the  Current  Error. 

Usher  mistook  the  time  of  Neb's,  first  invasion  of  Judea,  supposing 
(on  account  of  Dan.  i:  5,  18)  that  the  Jewish  pre-reckoning  of  his  reign 
must  be  over  two  whole  years  before  the  Babylonian  commencement 
of  it;  namely,  in  B.  C.  607  (instead  of  B.  C.  606,  over  one  year  before 
January,  604).  So  that  nineteen  years  of  Neb.  from  this  invasion  t/iics 
reckoned  end  in  B.  C.  588;  and  there  he  puts  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem in  the  vulgar  chronology  which  has  come  down  from  him. 

*  Josephus  makes  out  another  seventy  years,  from  the  Sabbatic  B. 
C.  583,  which  ended  the yf/zw//^^  capturing  of  23d  Neb.,  to  the  Sabbatic 
B.  C.  513;  not  until  which  passover  does  he  make  the  second  temple  to 
be  really  finished  and  re-dedicated,  after  seven  years'  progress  from 
the  Sabbatic  B.  C.  520.  (Ant.  11:  iv:  7).  This  gives  him  "seventy 
weeks,"  or  490  years  or  ten  jubilee  periods  from  the  dedication  of  Solo- 
mon's temple  at  the  jubilee  passover  of  B.  C.  1003  (the  correct  date 
as  he  has  it,  one  year  later  than  Usher)  down  to  the  jubilee  passover 
of  B.  C.  513,  as  the  rededication  date.  Such  was  the  divine  cycle  as 
cherished  by  Jewish  tradition,  preliminary  to  the  "  seventy  weeks  "  of 
Daniel  ix:  24. 


128  PERIOD    F 

Thus  we  read  in  Usher:  "A.  M.  3467  (beginning  October,  538  B.  C), 
last  part  of  the  first  year  of  Darius  the  Made  (/.  c,  of  B.  C.  538);  here 
begins  the  seventieth  year  from  the  taking  of  the  city  at  the  first  of 
Neb.,"  which  is  thus  made  to  be  in  (538+69=)  607  B.  C.  Again  he  says: 
"A.  M.  3416  (ending  October,  588),  Jerusalem  taken,  the  last  of  Neb's, 
nineteenth  year,  the  beginning  of  the  first  year  of  the  48th  Olympiad 
year,  160  of  Nabonassar."  These  data  all  make  Neb.  begin  in  B.  C. 
607. 

Modified  Form  of  Error. 

^  37.  Usher's  long  antedating  of  Neb.  was  soon  seen  to  be  utterly 
untenable.  For,  according  to  Berosus  in  Josephus,  Ant.  10,  xi:  i,  and 
Vs.  Ap.  I,  19,  at  his  invasion  of  Judea  Neb.  was  on  his  way  to  subdue 
Egypt;  which  was  no  sooner  done  m  the  very  next  year,  than  he  at  once 
took  the  throne  at  Babylon;  his  father  having  died  before  Egypt  was 
left.  Therefore,  since  a  Babylonian  reign  was  by  the  canon  numbered 
only  to  the  January  TJioth  or  new  year  before  its  close,  the  first  of  Neb. 
by  the  canon  could  not  begin  more  than  one  \vhoIe  year  after  the  inva- 
sion into  Judea. 

Consequently,  Prideaux,  Calmet,  and  others  corrected  back  the  in- 
vasion of  Neb.  to  its  true  year,  B.  C.  606  (requiring  the  "three  years" 
of  Dan.  i:  5,  18,  to  reach  to  the  very  end  of  B.  C.  604,  the  "second  year 
of  Neb.  in  ii:  i).  But  they  failed  to  correct  back  also  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  to  its  true  year,  B.  C.  587,  as  required  to  make  out  the 
nineteen  years  for  a  certainty  intervening.  For,  they  still  wrongly 
thought,  that  the  Jewish  antedating  of  Neb.  was  'just  two  full  years, 
or  rather,  was  a  regular  Babylonian  partnership  of  the  throne,  and  not 
Jewish  antedating.  And  by  this  means,  they  had  B.  C.  588  still  in  the 
Jewish  nineteenth  of  Neb.  though  not  ending  at  its  close. 

§38.  See  now  the  necessary  i^esults.  (i.)  The  required  nineteen 
years  from  the  invasion  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  are  reduced  to 
eighteen,  and  the  interval  back  to  Josiah  is  only  twenty-one  instead  of 
the  correct  twenty-two  years;  and  the  reign  of  Zedekiah  is  reduced  to 
ten  years,  in  place  of  the  assured  eleven.  This  eleven  is  certain,  not 
only  from  II  Kings  xxiv:8,  18,  and  II  Chron.  xxxvi:  9,  11,  before  cited, 
but  also  from  Ezek.  xl:  i  ("25th year  minus  14th  year"^  11  years);  and 
especially  from  Jer.  i:  3  ("unto  the  end  of  the  nth  year  of  Zedekiah"), 
and  Ezek.  xxxiii:2i,  the  news  of  Jerusalem's  overthrow  not  i^eaching 
Ezekiel  in  Babylon  until  "the  12th  year,"  viz,  December,  B.  C.  587. 
Prideaux  does  indeed  try  to  mend  the  matter,  and  to  get  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  (at  his  B.  C.  588)  within  the  beginning  of  Zedekiah's 
nth  year,  by  putting  back  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  regnal  years  to 
the  spring,  in  place  of  their  true  autumnal  reckoning  by  the  civil  year. 
But  this  device  is  by  no  means  allowable,  as  we  show  elsewhere;  and 


EXILE    AND    AFTER  129' 

this  beginning  of  the  nth  year  by  no  means  makes  out  eleven  years  as 
required. 

^  39.  (2.)  Moreover,  the  forty  years  of  Ezek.  iv:  6,  from  the  i8th  of 
Josiah  to  the  completed  capturing  at  23d  Neb.,  ai"e  reduced  to  thirty- 
nine,  contrary  to  the  claim  of  Piideaux  himself  (at  year  584).  Here 
note  that,  beyond  Josiah  the  Usher  reckoning  is  returned  to  by  Prid- 
eaux,  an  extra  year  being  gratuitously  inserted  after  Anion,  to  make  up 
for  the  one  he  has  wrongfully  left  out  fi-om  Zedekiah.  Because,  he 
remarks,  "  the  chronology  of  tJie  ensuing  history  makes  necessary  to  be 
here  supposed  *  *  *  certain  odd  months  over  and  above  "  !  Indeed  ! 
If  he  had  only  left  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  correctly  at  B.  C.  587, 
he  would  have  had  all  right  and  even,  without  need  of  supposition  and 
"odd  months"  contrived. 

(3.)  Not  only  is  all  this  falsity  produced  by  this  too-long  antedating 
of  Neb's  invasion,  but,  moreover,  the  two  years  of  co-reign  is  in  itself 
unallowable.  The  testimony  of  Berosus,  from  whom  alone  the  facts 
are  learned,  is,  that  the  father  "committed  to  his  son,  who  was  still 
but  a  youth,  some  part  of  his  army,  and  sent  them  against  the  enemy." 
Not  a  word  about  "admitting  him  as  partner  in  the  empire,"  as  Pri- 
deaux  (year  607)  and  Rollin  (Hist.  Assyr.)  put  it.  That  theory  is  a  pure 
assumption  without  authority.  It  was  a  Jewisli  antedating  of  Neb., 
and,  therefore,  must  correspond  with  Jewish  civil  years,  numbering 
Neb.  along  with  their  own  regnal  years  from  September  to  September. 
This  was  the  very  time  of  year  when  he  attacked  their  city,  as  Pri- 
deaux  himself  testifies,  saying  he  did  not  get  possession  of  the  city  till 
November,  B.  C.  606. 

?;  40.  (4.)  Still  further,  this  putting  of  the  ist  Neb.  to  begin  back 
in  the  3d  of  Jehoiakim,  instead  of  having  it  correspond  with  the  4th  of 
Jehoiakim,  is  directly  contrary  to  Jer.  xxv:  i,  and  xxxii:  i,  and  Jos.  Ant. 
ID,  vi:  I,  and  the  testimony  of  Prideaux  himself  (at  year  607).  Moreover, 
thus  to  make  the  Jewish  igth  Neb.  expire  in  January  of  B.  C.  587,  be- 
fore Zedekiah's  eleven  years  are  out  in  September,  contrary  to  II  Ki. 
xxiv:  18,  with  xxv:  8,  this  is  to  make  the  Jewish  8th  Neb.  expire  in  Janu- 
ary, B.  C.  598  before  Jehoiakim's  eleven  years  are  out  in  September, 
contrary  to  II  Ki.  xxiii:36,  with  xxiv:  12. 

(5.)  And  yet  again,  this  vulgar  date,  B.  C.  588,  for  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  is  only  the  17th  of  Neb.  by  the  Babylonian  reckoning; 
whereas  it  was  certainly  the  i8th  of  Neb.,  as  given  by  Josephus,  who 
evidently  follows  that  forty-three-year  reckoning  of  the  reign,  and  as 
given  also  by  Jeremiah  (Hi:  29).  There  is  no  authority  whatever  for 
putting  this  event  back  to  the  17th  of  Neb.,  or  27;^  (instead  of  the 
correct  zbYz)  years  before  the  end  of  his  forty-three-year  reign. 


130  PERIOD    F 

Important   Conclusions. 

§  41.  For  these  reasons,  we  pronounce  the  588  assignment  an  evi- 
dent mistake,  and  set  down  B.  C.  587  as  most  clearly  the  date  of  Jeru- 
salem's destruction.* 

The  wrong  dating  of  this  event  has  put  back  the  whole  prevhms 
chronology  of  Usher  one  year  too  early.  And,  since  the  Usher  intervals 
can  be  shown  to  be  otherwise  correct  back  to  the  reign  of  Solomon, 
this  vulgar  chronology  has  the  date  of  David's  reign,  and  Solomon's 
temple,  and  all  subsequent  events  down  to  the  captivity,  one  year 
wrong. 

Hence  the  present  readjustment  is  important,  as  a  basis  for  all  the 
Old  Testament  dates. 


*  The  theory  of  a  still  later  assignment  for  Jerusalem's  overthrow, 
as  in  B.  C.  586,  was  early  given  by  Syncellus,  followed  by  Scaliger, 
then  by  Jackson,  and  finally  by  Hales  within  the  present  century.  It 
was  founded  upon  an  attempted  modification  of  Ptolemy's  Canon,  and 
is  here  passed  by  as  entirely  untenable.  The  strange  theorizings  of 
Seyffarth  and  Thurman,  upon  still  later  assignments,  need  not  here  be 
noticed. 


PERIOD  E— THE  KINGS. 

PART  I. 

From  Solomon's  Temple  to  the  Captivity. 

Ji  I.  Proceeding  backward,  the  last  division  of  the  kings  reaches 
back  to  the  capture  of  Samaria;  the  middle  division  reaches  thence  to 
the  death  of  Solomon;  and  the  earlier  division  reaches  thence  to  the 
founding  of  the  Temple. 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Capture  of  Jerusalem,  etc. 

The  capture  of  Jerusalem  being  fixed  at  B.  C.  587,  it  follows  that 
the  capture  of  Samaria  was  133  years  before,  at  B.  C.  720.  For  the 
intermediate  reigns  are  certainly  as  follows:  Hezekiah's  29 — the  6 
elapsed=23+Manasseh  55+Amon  2+Josiah  31+Jehoahaz  and  Jehoi- 
kim  ii-|-Jehoiachin  and  Zedekiah  ii=total,  133  years.  These  num- 
bers are  assured  to  us  by  II  Ki.  xviii:  2,  10,  and  xxi:  i,  19,  and  xxi:  i,  and 
xxiii  131,36,  and  xxiv :  8, 18;  and  the  same  numbers  are  doubly  assured  to  us 
by  II  Chron.  xxix:  i,  and  xxxiii:  i,  21,  and  xx)dv:  i,  and  xxxvi:2,  5,  9,  11. 
There  is  no  way  to  increase  the  total  133,  so  as  to  carry  the  capture  of 
Samaria  to  722  B,  C. 

^  2.  It  has  been  fashionable  of  late,  particularly  among  Assyriolo- 
gists,  to  assign  the  capture  of  Samaria  to  B.  C.  722;  and  the  reason 
given  is,  that  an  Assyrian  monument  of  King  Sargon  says,  that  in  "his 
13th  year"  he  conquered  Babylon,  while  Ptolemy's  Canon  "makes 
Sargon  begin  his  reign  over  Babylon  at  B.  C.  709."  [Die.  of  Relia;. 
Kitoivl.,  Art.  Assyria.)  Hence,  it  is  argued  that  Sargon  must  have  be- 
gun in  (B.  C.  709+13^)722;  and  as  one  of  his  inscriptions  says  he  con- 
quered Samaria  "in  the  beginning  of  his  reign,"  therefore  that  event 
must  have  been  in  B.  C.  722.     But  see  how  fallacious  is  this  reckoning. 

J;  3.  As  B.  C.  709  was  only  "the  13th  year"  of  Sargon,  his  first 
year  began  but  twelve  whole  years  before,  in  B.  C,  721;  and  his  con- 
quest of  Samaria  near  "the  beginning  of  his  reign"  was  naturally  in 
B.  C.  720  (during  his  first  year),  just  as  scripture  makes  it.     Moreover, 


132  PERIOD    E 

while  one  inscription  of  Sargon  (K.  2688)  thus  makes  his  conquest  of 
Babylon  to  be  in  his  thirteenth  year,  another  inscription  of  his  (a  tablet 
in  the  Louvre)  calls  it  "the  twelfth  year  of  Sargon"  (see  Eponyni 
Canon,  p.  86),  which  certainly  puts  the  capture  of  Samaria  in  B.  C. 
720.  Still  further  observe,  that  since  the  canon  of  Ptolemy  always 
dates  a  reign  from  the  Thoth  before  it  actually  began  (as  shown  con- 
clusively by  Hales  and  others)*,  therefore,  its  assigning  of  Sargon  to 
Babylon  in  B.  C.  709,  shows  that  his  real  conquest  there  was  certainly 
as  late  as  the  end  oi  B.  C.  709,  with  his  first  year  down  to  B.  C.  720.  f 

g  4.  There  is,  therefore,  no  occasion  to  change  the  date  of  Samaria's 
overthrow  away  from  its  established  location  as  in  B.  C.  720,  where 
scripture  assigns  it.  In  B.  C.  723,  after  three  years  of  Hezekiah, 
Shalmaneser,  King  of  Assyria,  besieged  Samaria,  and  after  his  death, 
his  soui  Sargon,  took  the  city  in  B.  C.  720,  when  Hezekiah  had  reigned 
six  years.  (H  Ki.  xviii:  g,  10.)  The  expression  " /"//^j/ took  it,"  indicates 
that  it  was  not  the  same  king  ending  the  siege  as  the  one  who  began 
it.  There  is  no  way  to  increase  the  total  133  years,  so  as  to  carry  the 
capture  of  Samaria  back  to  B.  C.  722. 

The  Death  of  Solomon. 
i^  5.  The  history  of  the  Ten  Tribes,  or  the  time  between  Solomon's 
death  and  the  capture  of  Samaria  is  the  great  modern  battle-ground  of 
scripture  chronology.  We  shall  presently  proceed  to  demonstrate 
that  this  interval,  covering  the  duration  of  the  Kingdom  of  Israel,  was 
by  scripture  put  254  years  from  B.  C.  720  to  974,  the  date  of  Solomon's 
death  (though  Assyriologists  are  trying  to  reduce  it  over  40  years,  to 
about  B.  C.  930).  For  the  present  take  for  granted  the  B.  C.  974  as 
the  true  Bible  date. 

The  Founding  of  the  Temple. 
^6.     This  was  "in   the   4th   year  of   Solomon,"   and   as   Solomon 
reigned  "40  years,"  it  was  (40— 4th=)  37  years  before  his  death,  viz.,  in 

*See  Period  F,  S^  2. 

f  Schwartz  tells  us  that  in  its  method  "the  canon  of  Ptolemy  simply 
exemplifies  the  universal  Semitic  habit,  as  illustrated  by  the  Eponym 
canon  (of  Assyria)  and  by  the  annals  of  Judah  and  Israel."  So  then, 
the  canon's  assignment  of  B.  C.  709  for  the  beginning  of  Sargon  at 
Babylon  may  indicate  a  real  beginning  of  reign  there  in  B.  C.  708; — 
and  "the  13th  year"  will  carry  us  only  to  B.  C.  720  as  the  real  begin- 
ning of  Sargon,  which  in  like  manner  is  antedated  to  the  new  year  in 
B.  C.  721  (not  722)  by  the  Eponym  Canon.  Note  also,  that  this  accords 
better  with  the  Eponym  Canon  itself,  which  has  Sargon  as  Eponym  in 

B.  C.  719,  making  his  accession  (the  usual  two  years  before)  to  be  in  B. 

C.  721.  "Prof.  Hechler,  in  his  address  before  the  Oriental  Congress 
in  London  on  'Assyriology  and  the  Bible,'  said,  that  the  biblical  state- 
ments and  the  results  of  scientific  research  unite  in  making  721  or  720 
B.  C.  the  date  for  the  capture  of  Samaria."  [Boston  Watclinian,  Oct., 
1892.) 


THE    KINGS  133 

(B.  C.  974+37=)  loii  B.  C.  For  a  discussion  of  "•The  4tli  year  of 
Solomon,"  see  Period  D,  Appendix  A,  §41.  This  B.  C.  loii  may  be 
considered  as  the  determinate  scripture  date  for  Solomon's  Temple. 

Usher  has  Nebuchadnezzer's  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  his  A.  M. 
3416,  B.  C.  588,  with  the  interval  133  years  back  to  the  fall  of  Samaria, 
as  in  B.  C.  721,  and  254  years  back  to  the  revolt  of  Jereboam  as  in  B. 
C.  975,  and  40  years  back  to  the  death  of  David  as  in  B.  C.  1015,  or 
427  years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  B.  C.  588.  But  we 
have  shown  conclusively  (in  Period  F,  ^  15,  etc.)  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
took  the  city  a  year  later,  in  B.  C.  587;  and  this  throws  down  all  those 
dates  one  year  to  B.  C.  587,  720,.  974,  1014,  which  last  may  be  con- 
sidered as  the  now-settled  date  of  Salomon's  accession  to  his  "40 
years' "  reign. 

There  is  one  other  subject  belonging  here,  as  introductory  to  our 
study  of  the  Assyriological  claims  (which  will  presently  come  before 
us),  viz: 


CHAPTER  I  1. 

Hezekiah's  "14TH  Year. 

The  Harmony  of  Isaiah,  xxxvi:  i,  with  Assyrian  Datings. 

"Now  it  came  to  pass  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  King  Hezekiah. 
that  Sennacherib,  King  of  Assyria,  came  up  against  all  the  defenced 
cities  of  Judah,  and  took  them." 

i;  7.  By  the  scripture  chronology,  Hezekiah's  14th  year  of  reign 
began  B.  C.  712.  At  which  time  Sargon  was  king  of  Assyria,  reigning 
B.  C.  721-705,  followed  by  his  son  Sennacherib,  who,  on  his  inscrip- 
tions at  B.  C.  701-2  (we  are  told  by  Assyriologists),  describes  his  third 
campaign  as  an  invasion  and  plundering  of  Hezekiah's  domain.  This 
would  be  Hezekiah's  24th  year,  instead  of  the  "  14th;"  and,  therefore, 
some  propose  to  consider  the  "  14th"  as  a  corruption  of  the  text,  as 
suggested  by  Dr.  Geikie,  in  the  .S'.  S.   Times,  Jan.  g,  1892. 

But  this  supposition  involves  a  similar  corruption  at  II  Ki.  xviii:  17; 
and  worse  still,  it  contradicts  the  subsequent  history;  which  (at  Isa. 
xxxviii:  i,  and  II  Ki.  xx:  i)  gives  Hezekiah's  sickness  as  "in  those  days  " 
(viz.  of  Sennacherib's  coming).  And  as  the  sickness  was  "  15  years" 
before  the  end  of  his  29  (ver.  5),  its  date  must  be  in  the  end  o{  his  14th 
year — the  coming  of  Sennacherib  having  been  near  the  heginniiig  of 
that  14th  year.  Therefore,  we  can  not  suppose  the  "  14th  year"  date 
to  be  a  corruption;  since  Isa.  xxxviii:  i,  would  in  that  case  be  without 
sense  or  truth. 


134  PERIOD    E 

J5  8.  More  probable  is  the  suggestion  drawn  from  Rollins  in  his 
Ancient  History  (Assyr.  ch,  2),  that  scripture  for  some  reason  speaks 
of  Sargon  under  the  name  of  Sennecherib.  Or,  we  may  take  sugges- 
tion from  the  British  commentary  of  Fausset,  which  gives  Sargon  as 
ending  B.  C.  715,  and  Sennacherib  as  then  commencing;  who  (it  says) 
in  his  3d  year  of  service  (B.  C.  711-712)  "overran  Syria,  took  Sidon 
and  other  Phoenician  cities,  and  then  passed  to  southwestern  Pales- 
tine, where  he  defeated  the  Egyptians  and  Ethiopians,"  as  his  inscrip- 
tions state. 

§  9.  Our  suggestion  is,  that  Sennacherib  may  have  become  viceroy 
at  about  B.  C.  712,  going  for  his  father  on  the  campaign  against  Pales- 
tine in  the  west,  while  the  father  Sargon  devoted  himself  in  the  east  to 
those  successive  campaigns  of  B.  C.  711-709,  by  which  at  last  in  709  he 
conquered  Babylon,  as  Sargon's  inscriptions  show.  (See  Die.  Relig. 
Knowl.)  At  about  this  same  time  (709)  the  son,  Sennacherib,  would  be 
(in  his  3d  year  of  service)  threatening  Palestine  and  Egypt  in  the  west, 
in  the  name  of  his  father  Sargon,  who  still  lived  till  B.  C.  705.*  At 
any  rate,  the  Jews  seem  to  have  come  in  contact  with  the  son  rather 
than  the  father,  and  so  to  have  recorded  him  as  the  "  King  of  Assy- 
ria"—  at  first  prospectively  and  at  last  actually  the  king — who  so 
threatened  them  and  met  with  such  a  disastrous  end. 

We,  therefore,  propose  to  read  the  scripture  passage  before  us  as 
meaning,  when  properly  rendered  with  an  italic  thought-word  supplied, 
as  follows: 

"Now  it  came  to  pass  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  King  Hezekiah, 
that  Sennacherib,  future  king  of  Assyria,  came  up  against  all  the  de- 
fenced  cities  of  Judah,  and  he  took  them,"  /;/  t/ie  course  of  time.  (See 
II  Chron.  xxxii:  i.) 

There  is,  then,  no  corruption  of  the  text;  but  only  a  slight  hiatus  of 
the  thought,  requiring  the  italic  word  inserted. 

^  10.  The  only  remaining  difficulty  arises  from  the  common  under- 
standing of  Sennacherib's  invasion  of  Palestine,  as  all  occurring 
within  a  single  season;  so  as  to  fit  together  Isa.  xxxvi:  i,  and  xxxviii:  i, 
as  at  beginning  and  end  of  the  same  year.  Whereas,  in  truth,  there 
are  given  three  distinct  campaigns,  evidently  covering  several  years  of 
time. 

When  the  first  campaign  (at  xxxvi:  i)  is  named,  the  writer  thinks 
best  to  go  on  at  once  and  describe  the  subsequent  campaigns,  even  to 
the  terrible  death  of  the  invader  many  years  later;  so  as  to  show  up 
the  whole  story  of  Sennacherib  complete,  in  the  graphic  manner  of 


*This  case  is  thus  parallel  to  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  whose  reign 
was  prereckoned  by  the  Jews  while  his  father  still  lived.  (See  period 
F,  §  23.) 


THE    KINGS  135 

anticipation  so  common  in  writing  history,  and  especially  so  common 
in  scripture.  Then  (at  xxxviii:  i)  he  returns  to  finish  his  account  of 
"the  14th  year  of  Hezekiah,  begun  at  xxxvi:  i,  the  two  intermediate 
chapters  being  passed  over  in  thought  as  parenthetic. 

The  Assyrian  Assaults. 

i;  II.  Our  Bibles  ought  to  show  a  space  or  distinct  paragraph  nota- 
tion, at  Isa.  xxxvi:  2,  and  at  xxxvii:  9.  For,  at  those  points  are  prob- 
ably commenced  new  and  distinct  campaigns,  separated  by  years  of 
time.  At  xxxvii:  g,  the  "he"  does  not  mean  "  Rabshakeh,"  as  some- 
times thought,  but  "the  king  of  Assyria,"  as  shown  by  the  "my  "  in 
Ver.  12. 

There  is  here  no  "when"  in  the  Hebrew,  but  it  reads  literally, 
"And  he  heard,  and  he  sent."  The  meaning  probably  is  [hy  con- 
strue tio  pregnans);  "  And  he  hearkened  and  yielded'''  (to  the  "rumor," 
i,  <?.,  acted  in  view  of  it).  "And  afterwards  he  sent  to  Hezekiah."  For, 
often  this  word  "hear"  implies  thus  fully  an  obeying,  as  here  at  Ver. 
16,  "  Hearken  not  to  Hezekiah  ";  where  the  Hebrew  "  hearken  "  is  the 
same  word  "hear." 

§12.  Hence,  the  following  "sent"  may  be  (after  a  colon)  a  long 
time  subsequently  (see  Scott's  Com.),  even  after  Sargon's  death.  For 
now  (in  ver.  11-13)  he  boasts,  as  not  before,  of  "all  lands"  destroyed, 
naming  the  regions  of  "Eden"  and  all  about  Babylonia  as  now  con- 
quered by  "my  father,"/,  e.,  by  Sargon  in  the  conquest  of  Babylon 
(B.  C.  709),  which  had  intervened  since  his  former  coming.  It  was 
"Samaria"  most  prominent  before  as  overthrown  (xxxvi:  19);  but  now 
it  was  "  Babylon  fallen,"  (as  seen  at  xxi:  9.)  A  "  rumor"  of  Tirhakah's 
approach  (xxxvii:  7,  9)  alarmed  Sennacherib  awaj'  from  Judea;  but  the 
real  onset  against  Tirhakah  and  Egypt  may  have  been  years  after. 

At  xxxvi:  2,  also,  there  is  certainly  a  long  preceding  interval;  for 
there  is  an  omission  here,  supplied  at  H  Kings  xviii:  14-16.  Hezekiah 
obtained  terms  from  the  invader  at  his  first  campaign,  and  bought  him 
off  by  payment  of  a  large  price  set  by  the  invader  himself,  for  a  with- 
drawal or  "  return  from  "  the  land.  Of  course,  a  year  or  two  (at  least) 
must  have  elapsed,  before  a  claim  for  more  tribute  would  bring  the 
invader  back.  See  also  H  Chron.  xxxii:  1-9;  where  other  operations  in- 
tervene, and  "  after  this  "  the  second  campaign  comes  in. 

The  Inscriptions. 

^  13.  The  Assyrian  inscriptions  tell  us  that  "The  Assyrian  Sargon 
conquered  Babylon,  and  announced  himself  as  king  of  it,  in  the  thir- 
teenth year  of  his  reign,  B.  C.  709."  And  again:  "  Sargon  fought 
with  Merodach-baladam  of  Babylon  in  710  and  in  709,  becoming  final 
victor  in  the  latter  year."  {Die.  Relig.  Knozvl  art.  Assyriology.) 
This  was  at  the  east;  what  was  going  on  at  tJie  luest? 


13<>  PERIOD    E 

"The  inscriptions  tell  us,  that  Sargon  received  tribute  from  a 
Pharaoh  of  'Egypt,'  besides  destroying  in  part  the  Ethiopian  '  No- 
Ammon '  or  Thebes;  also  that  he  warred  with  the  cities  of  Ashdod, 
Gaza,"  etc. — in  hai^mony  with  Isa.  xx:  i.  {British  Com.  of  Fausset.) 
This  campaign  "against  Ashdod  was  B.  C.  711  "  (says  the  Die.  Relig. 
Knowl.);  and  it  was  followed  by  the  second  campaigns  against 
Hezekiah  (at  Isa.  xxxvi:  2). 

For,  II  Ki.  xviii:  17,  informs  us  that  "the  king  of  Assyria  sent  to 
King  Hezekiah,"  the  same  "Tartan  "  whom  "  Sargon  sent  against  Ash- 
dod "  (in  Isa.  xx:  i).  Hence,  the  two  affaii's  are  closely  connected. 
And  the  taking  of  Hezekiah's  cities  comes  last  (say  in  710  or  709),  be- 
cause Sennacherib's  inscription  says  he  gave  those  cities  when  taken 
to  the  Philistines  of  "Ashdod,"  who  must,  therefore,  have  been  pre- 
viously subdued  and  brought  into  allegiance. 

^  14.  We  thus  find,  that  the  same  years  (B.  C.  712-708),  in  which 
the  zuestern  campaigns  to  Palestine  and  Egypt  were  going  on,  were 
also  occupied  with  the  eastern  campaigns  (B.  C.  710,  709),  in  which 
Babylon  was  assailed  and  finally  conquered.  What  more  natural, 
then,  than  that  Sargon  himself  should  take  charge  of  the  eastern  or 
home  operations  about  Babylon,  and  should  entrust  the  western  or  dis- 
tant operations  at  Palestine  to  his  son  Sennacherib  as  viceroy  ?  In- 
deed, how  could  the  son,  full-grown  and  warlike  as  we  know  he  then 
was,  help  joining  thus  in  the  fight  ?  * 

The  Assyrian  army,  after  passing  from  Lachish  to  assault  Libnah 
(Isa.  xxxvii:  8),  and  after  giving  to  the  Philistine  "Ashdod"  the  cities 
taken  from  Hezekiah  (say  in  709),  went  on  south  to  attack  Tii^hakah 
and  Egypt,  stirring  up  all  Arabia  with  fleeing  hosts.  But  years  after- 
ward, when  Sargon  had  died  (B.  C.  705),  Sennacherib  may  have 
returned  to  the  onset  upon  Tirhakah  and  Egypt,  and  may  then  again 
have  threatened  Hezekiah  (as  at  Isa.  xxxvii:  g).  How  else,  if  there  be 
no  gap  at  Isa.  xxxvii:  g,  can  "the  Egyptian  prisoners  and  Ethiopian 
captives  "  after  "  three  years,"  as  told  in  Isa.  xx:  3,  4,  be  brought  in  ? 

Isaiah  Ch.  xx:  21. 

$5  15.  The  "Ashdod"  account  at  Isa.  xx:  i,  shows  that  the  script- 
ure itself  knew  of  "Sargon,"  and  recognized  him  as  really  "king  of 
Assyria"  at  the  time  of  these  Palestine  invasions.     So  that  its  else- 


"*The  revisers  tell  us  that  "Tartan,"  etc.,  are  "the  titles  of  As- 
syrian officers."  Tartan  being  the  first  and  leading  officer  named,  its 
meaning  to  a  Hebrew  in  the  Chaldean  idiom,  as  a  contracted  com- 
pound Tar'-tank,  would  be  "  the  royal  court  repented,"  or  the  seeoiul 
porte  (in  the  Turkish  sense  of  porte).  See  Gesenius  at  JJin  or  teray. 
And  might  not  this  be  the  title  of  Sennacherib  himself,  as  the  heir 
apparent,  or  viceroy  of  the  king  ? 


THE    KINGS  137 

where  attributing  the  invasions  to  the  son  Sennacherib  as  "king" 
must  be  only  ■&.%  prospcctii'cly  king,  or  "  king  apparent  "  in  his  father's 
place  and  (to  them  especially)  even  more  notable  than  his  father. 

That  section  of  Isaiah  (ch.  xx:  21)  is  certainly  connected  with  the 
campaigns  against  Hezekiah  and  belongs  to  his  14th  to  i8th  years  as 
B.  C.  712-708  (see  Scott's  Bible) — not  B.  C.  701 — as  plainly  shown  by 
its  contents. 

In  ch.  XX,  "in  the  year  that  Tartan  came  unto  Ashdod  "  and  Jeru- 
salem (B.  C.  712-710),  Isaiah  declares  the  folly  of  Palestine's  depend- 
ence on  Egypt  for  help,  foretelling  that  during  "three  years"  the 
"king  of  Assyria  shall  lead  away  the  Egyptian  prisoners"  (ver. 
3-4).  Then  in  ch.  xxi  he  gives  "the  burden  of  the  desert"  east- 
ward to  Euphrates,  and  prophecies  "Babylon  is  fallen,  is  fallen" 
(ver,  9),  2.  c,  is  taken  by  Sargon  (B.  C.  709)  in  anticipation  of  its  final 
destruction  by  Cyrus.  And  he  closes  (at  ver.  13)  with  "the  burden 
upon  Arabia,"  when  "within  a  year  "  (from  709  ? )  that  country  should 
be  stirred  up  by  the  fleeing  hosts  from  the  Assyrian  invasion  through 
Palestine  upon  Egypt,  when  "they  fled  from  the  swords"  (ver.  15-16). 

^  16.  All  centers  about  the  year  709  B.  C,  when  Sargon  conquered 
Babylon  and  when  Isaiah  had  "walked  naked  and  barefoot  three  years 
for  a  sign  and  a  wonder  upon  Egypt"  (xx:  3),  i.  e.,  from  B.  C.  712,  the 
fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah,  the  first  of  Assyrian  invasion.  Our  ex- 
position here  of  the  Fall  of  Babylon,  in  Isa.  xxi:  9,  as  meaning  primarily 
its  conquest  by  Sai^gon  in  B.  C.  709,  is  new  and  striking.  Is  it  not  more 
satisfactory  than  the  \iew  universally  given  which  overlooks  entirely 
that  event  ? 

^17.     What,  then,  have  we  learned  ? 

1.  That  "in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah  "  (B.  C.  712)  Senna- 
cherib came  (for  his  father,  Sai^gon)  against  Judah,  but  was  bought  off 
and  induced  to  return. 

2.  That  afterward  (say  in  three  years,  B.  C.  709)  Sennacherib 
again  made  invasion  with  Tartan  and  Rabshakeh  and  (in  the  name  of 
his  father,  Sargon)  having  befoi^e  taken  Ashdod  and  other  Philistine 
cities,  as  recorded  in  Isa.  xx:  1-6,  he  now  assailed  Hezekiah  again  as 
in  xxxvi:  2.  And  now,  perhaps,  he  mostly  did  what  is  by  anticipation 
in  xxxvi:  i,  "he  took  them,"  thedefenced  cities  of  Judah,  giving  them  to 
the  Philistines  (as  he  says  in  his  inscription). 

3.  Then,  it  may  be  long  after,  even  after  Sargon  had  died  in  B.C. 
705,  Sennacherib,  going  to  fight  Tirhakah  and  Egypt,  again  threat- 
ened Hezekiah  (by  letter),  as  told  at  xxxvii:  9,  but  miserably  perished 
as  at  ver.  36-38.  (In  this  view  the  mention  of  King  "Sennacherib  "  in 
Isa.  xxxvii:  17,  21,  37;  II  Ki.  xix:  16,  20,  36;  IlChron.  xxxii:9,  22,  would 
be  correct,  and  the  mention  of  "Sennacherib"  in  Isa.  xxxvi:  i,  might 
be  treated  as  the  error  of  some  ancient  copyist  writing  the  Hebrew 


138  PERIOD   E 

"Senherib"  in  place  of  the  Assyrian  "Sharukin"  or  "  Shargina,"  that 
error  finding  its  way  to  the  parallel,  II  Ki.  xviii*.  13,  and  II  Chron.  xxxii: 

I,  2.) 

Sennacherib's  Account. 
§  18.  The  inscription  of  Sennacherib  "on  the  third  column  of  his 
hexagonal  clay  cylinder,  discovered  in  1830  in  the  ruins  of  Nineveh," 
as  translated  by  Professor  Hilprecht  (.S".  5.  Times,  Jan.  9,  1892),  is  a 
mixed  up  and  pompous  account  of  his  various  adventures  above  men- 
tioned, as  if  all  in  a  single  "third  campaign,  B.  C,  701,  with  plain  in- 
tent to  cover  up  his  final  disaster.  When  examined,  it  clearly  confirms 
the  orderly  history  of  affairs  in  scripture  as  indicated  above. 

The  invader  concedes  that  Hezekiah  "sent  his  envoy  to  pay  over 
the  tribute"  to  him  when  distant  from  Jerusalem.  Which  shows  that 
this  was  what  bought  off  the  enemy  for  a  time  at  the  beginning  of 
affairs,  just  as  described  in  II  Ki.  xviii:  13-14,  and  was  not  money  ex- 
acted at  the  end,  as  he  tries  to  make  it  appear. 

The  many  captives  and  much  plunder  he  tells  of  carrying  off,  came 
also  not  at  the  close,  as  he  would  like  to  have  it  thought ;  but,  doubt- 
less these  were  largely  "the  Egyptian  prisoners  and  Ethiopian 
captives"  whom  Isaiah  foretold  near  the  beginning  (Isa.  xx:  1-6)  as 
doomed  to  be  carried  off,  i.  e.,  after  the  second  campaign  {xxxvii:  8). 

Sennacherib  says:  "  The  Arabs  and  Hezekiah's  allies  took  fright." 
And  so,  Isaiah  follows  that  prophecy  of  Egyptian  capture  (chap.  20)  with 
z.  flight,  as  "the  burden  upon  Arabia,"  to  come  "  within  a  year,"  when 
he  foresaw  that  they  "  fled  from  the  swords."     (xxi:  13,  15,  16.) 

g  19.  Sennacherib's  inscription  says:  "  Hezekiah's  cities  that  I  had 
sucked,  I  separated  from  his  country,  and  gave  them  to  the  king  of 
Ashdod,  of  Ekron,  and  of  Gaza,  and  thus  reduced  his  country."  This 
shows  that  ^^<7r<' Hezekiah's  "fenced  cities  "  were  taken,  "Ashdod" 
and  those  other  coast  cities  of  Philistia  had  been  subdued  and  brought 
into  allegiance;  as  we  have  been  explaining. 

He  also  says:  "I  added  another'  payment  of  tribute  from  Hezekiah," 
showing  that  there  had  been  a  period  of  rest  after  the  tribute  paid  at  II 
Ki.  xviii:  15.  All  these  circumstances  prove  that  the  procedures  from 
that  point  onward  do  not  occur  in  the  14th  of  Hezekiah,  when  invasion 
commenced,  but  a  considerable  time  afterward;  even  reaching,  it  may 
be,  into  Sennacherib's  sole  reign,  or  to  Hezekiah's  24th  year,  B.  C.  701-2. 
At  that  time,  or  some  time  after  all  was  over,  Sennacherib,  undertak- 
ing to  cover  up  his  final  disaster,  jumbles  the  whole  story  of  previous  ad- 
ventures together  in  a  pompous  display  of  conquest. 

[It  is  not  necessary  here  to  notice  the  impossible  scheme  of  destruc- 
tive critics  who  try  to  reconstruct  the  whole  reign  of  Hezekiah,  to 
accommodate  the  Assyrian  account.  That  is  rending  instead  of  har- 
monizing scripture.] 


THE    KINGS  139 


Result. 


g  20.  In  view  of  this  exposition,  we  find  the  Assyrian  inscriptions 
wonderfully  corroborating  the  scripture  history;  indeed  demonstrating 
its  reality  and  accuracy  beyond  the  need  of  dispute. 

But  we  here  learn,  that  there  must  be  thorough  sifting  of  the  whole 
scripture,  and  critical  analysis  of  its  construction,  as  well  as  careful 
sifting  of  Assyrian  datings  themselves,  before  the  harmony  of  the  two 
appears. 

So  that,  we  are  set  upon  the  closest  study  of  the  Bible,  along  with 
archa;ologicial  and  critical  research,  to  get  at  the  whole  truth,  and 
learn  the  beautiful  accord  of  true  science  and  Divine  Revelation. 


PART    II. 

Bible  Chronology  of  the  Kings. 

[Sko'-u'n  to  In-  Remarkably  Olri'iOHS,  Simple  and  Certain.) 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Bible  Dates. 

§  21.  A  well-settled  starting-point  for  Old  Testament  chronology  is 
the  2d  year  of  Darius  Hystaspes,  King  of  Persia,  at  B.  C.  520;  when 
that  king  re-issued  the  decree  of  Cyrus  for  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem.  And  from  that  time  there  are  just  200  years  back  to  the 
capture  of  Samaria  and  the  exile  of  the  ten  tribes  in  B.  C.  720. 

These  200  years  are  made  up  as  follows:  From  the  2d  of  Darius, 
B.  C.  520,  there  are  67  years  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  B.  C. 
587,  in  the  19th  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (II  Ki.  xxv:  8).  Hence,  the  kings 
of  Judah  reach  back  133  years,  thus rZedekiah  and  Jehoiachin  ii+Jeho- 
iakim  and  Jehoahaz  ii+Josiah  31+Amon  2+Manasseh  55+23  of  Hez- 
ekiah's  29=133  years  to  B.  C.  720.  (II  Ki.  xviii:  9,  10.)  Ptolemy's 
Canon  and  the  Bible  carry  us  securely  thus  far. 

§  22.  From  the  capture  of  Samaria  in  B.  C.  720,  the  Bible  gives 
254  years  back  to  the  death  of  Solomon  in  B.  C.  974,  and  then+40  to 
the  beginning  of  Solomon  in  B.  C.  1014.  The  current  Usher  chron- 
ology makes  i  year  more,  having  David's  death  in  B.  C.  1015,  and  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  B.  C.  58S,  leaving  the  reigns  of  the  kings 
just  the  same  length  as  here  given.  Usher's  mistake  of  i  year  too 
early  for  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  so  for  Solomon's  temple 
and  reign,  we  fully  exhibit  elsewhere. 

The  Kingdom  of  Israel. 

The  period  from  the  death  of  Solomon  to  the  capture  of  Samaria, 
though  much  called  in  question  by  recent  critics  in  their  attempts  to 
satisfy  supposed  Assyrian  dates,  is  very  obviously  254  years  by  the 
scripture  accounts;  which  have  here  the  advantage  of  giving  contem- 
poraneous reigns,  in  the  two  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Israel,  which  by 
their  continual  synchronisms  generally  confirm  each  other;  with  the 


THE    KINGS 


141 


extra  advantage  of  a  double  record  in  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chron- 
icles, together  with  many  corroborative  datings  found  in  the  prophets. 
There  could  scarcely  be  more  favorable  and  trustworthy  data,  or  a 
more  easily  adjustable  reckoning  of  dates,  in  any  period  of  human 
history. 

^  23.  As  the  Kings  of  Judah  are  a  single  hereditary  line,  without 
any  break,  while  the  kings  of  Israel  are  a  broken  series  of  usurpers,  with 
anarchies  or  interregnums  between,  it  is  plainly  the  kings  of  Judah 
whose  reigns  in  succession  are  to  indicate  the  time.  We  proceed  to 
give  the  reigns  in  both  kingdoms,  as  filling  up  the  254  years. 


Table  of  Reigns. 


Rehoboam. 
Abijah 


Asa 

Jehoshaphat .  25  yrs 

.,  7  yrs). 


Jehoram,  8(th  , 
Ahaziah 


Athaliah 

Jehoash,  40(th,  i.  e., . 
Amaziah,  29  yrs 


41  vrs 
f    18  yrs 

•]     4  yrs 

4  yrs  \ 
I  yr 

6  yrs 

39  yrs) 

i    15  yrs 
52  yrs 


Jotham 16  yrs 

Ahaz,  i6'th,  i.  c 15  yrs 

Hezekiah,  29  yrs  61th  /.  c, . .         6  yrs) 


leroboam 22(nd, 


Baasha 241  th,  /. 

Elah 2;nd,  /. 

Omri i2(th,  /.  i 

Ahab 22(nd,  /. 

Ahaziah 2(nd,  ?'. 

Jehoram 


Jehu 28(th,  /". 

Jehoahaz lyjth,  i. 

Jehoash 


Jeroboam,   II 

Interregnum. 
Zachariah,   i&c. . . 

Menahem 

Pekaiah 

Pekah,  20  yrs 


21  yrs) 
I  yr) 

23  yrs) 
lyr) 

11  yrs) 
21  yrs) 

I  yr) 

12  yrs 


,  27  yrsl 

,,   16  yrs) 

16  yrs 

41  yrs 
i2-f-5  mo 

0-1-7  mo 
10  yrs 

2  yrs 

I  19  yrs 
9  yrs 
9  yrs 


(Added,  260.) 


(Added,  241-7  mo. -7  ds.' 


J;  24.  It  is  worthy  of  note  how  little  variation  has  to  be  made  from 
the  Bible  figures,  thus  to  balance  the  reigns  in  the  two  kingdoms.  The 
reigns  in  Judah,  as  here  given  from  scripture,  add  up  just  260  years; 
but  three  of  these  are  an  overlap  of  Jehoram  upon  his  father,  Jehosha- 
phat, as  everybody  concedes,  and  scripture  itself  teaches.  (Comp.  I 
Ki.  xxii:  42;  II  Ki.  iii:  i,  and  viii:  16),  and  3  years  are  only  apparent, 
being  the  curt'ent  year  given  for  the  complete  years,  i  less,  in  three 
cases,  at  Jehoram,  Jehoash  and  Ahaz.  Thus,  the  254  years  appear  at 
once.     (So  also  Josephus,  see  ij  55.) 

Note. — The  254  from  Solomon's  death  to  the  cai)ture  of  Samaria  is 
about  the  same  in  the  Modern  Jewish  chronology;  for  that  has  Sol.  40 
-|-Israel,  256-l-Judah,  114,  to  beginning  of  captivity  in  the  4th  year  of 
Jehoiakim=  "410"  years.  They  evidently  took  the  total  of  Judah's 
reigns,   viz.,   260  years,  omitting   only  3  or  4  of  the  6  years'  omission 


142  PERIOD    E 

here  shown  to  be  required.  The  Talmud  itself,  compiled  in  B.  C.  32, 
says  (at  the  end  of  Solomon  the  Wise),  "Four  hundred  and  thirty- 
three  years  (433)  elapsed  between  the  date  of  Solomon's  reign  and  that 
of  the  temple's  destruction;"  that  is  40+260-1-133=433.  And  thus  it 
has  the  interval  260  of  exact  Bible  addition  without  any  reduction. 

All  the  early  kings  of  Israel  seem  to  have  their  reigns  thus  given 
current,  i.  e.,  1  more  than  complete  years;  and  Schwartz  thence  infers 
(Bib.  Sac,  1888,  p.  71),  that  they  must  always  be  so  reckoned.  But 
the  proper  rule  is  that  only  as  the  synchronism  of  the  reigns  require 
it,  must  any  number,  whether  in  Israel  or  in  Judah,  be  considered  as 
current  rather  than  complete.  There  are  nine  such  cases  in  Israel,  be- 
sides two  evident  interregnums  or  periods  of  anarchy  not  accounted  for. 

§  25.  All  the  numbers  of  the  foregoing  table  are  fully  confirmed  by 
the  numerous  synchronisms  and  cross-references  between  particular 
years  of  contemporaneous  kings  compared,  as  given  in  the  books  of 
Kings  and  of  Chronicles.  And  only  a  few  comments  are  needed  to  har- 
monize all  the  Bible  data.     This  is  seen  by  the  following  table: 

TABLE  OF  SYNCHRONISMS. 


Judah. 


ist  Rehoboam,  17. 
(i8th)Rehoboam.. 
ist  Asa,  41,  41st  .  . 

2d  Asa 

3d  Asa 

26th  Asa 

27th  Asa 

31st    (31)  Asa 

38th  Asa 

(42d)  Asa 

(ist  Jehoram) 

2d  Jehoram 

ist  Jehoram,  8  (th) 

(4th)  Jehoram 

{8th)  Jehoram 

ist  Athaliah,  6  .... 
(7th)  Athaliah 


:ist  Abijah,  3. 
:{4th  Abijah).. 


=  ist  Jehosh.,  25  (22). 

=i7th(i7)[i8th] 

=i8th  {18)  [19th]  .... 

=  (23d) 

=(25th  end., he  died. 

=ist  Ahaziah,  i 

=  (2d)  Ahaziah 

=ist  Jehoash,  40(th) 

23d  {22d)  [2ISt] 

37th  (37) 

=  (40th} 


ist  Amaziah,  29. 
(3d)  Amaziah.  . 
15th  Amaziah. . 
{30th),  15  years  after.  =ist  Azariah,  52. 

(27th)  Azariah 

38th  (38)  Azariah. 

Isgth  Azariah. 

39th  (39)  Azariah.. 

50th  Azariah 

52d  Azariah 

ist  Jotham,  i5 (53d)  Azariah 

(17th)  Jotham =ist  Ahaz,  15  (th). 

20th  Jotham =  (4th  Ahaz) 

i2th  (12) 

ist  Hezekiah,  29 (16th)  [15th] 

4thHezekiah | 

6th  (6)  [-th] -After  3  years.... 


ist  Nadab,  2  (nd) . . . 

(2d)  Nadab 

ist  Elah,  2  (nd) 

(2d)  ElahOmri 

(7th)  Elah  Om.  6.... 
ist  Ahab,  22  (nd)  ... 
4th  (4)  [5th]  Ahab... 

(22d)  Ahab 

ist  Jehoram,  12 

5th  Jehoram 

(8th)  Jehoram 

i2th,  nth  (11)  Jeho. 
(13th)  Jehoram 


ist  Jehoahaz,  17  (th) 
(17th)  Jehoahaz 


(ist  Jeroboam,  53).... 
ist  Jeroboam,  41  [40]. 
(i6th)  27th  Jeroboam, 

(42d)  Jeroboam 

(54tli)  Jeroboam 

ist  Shallun,  i  mo 


ist  Pekaiah, 
(3d)  Pekaiah. 


ist  Hoshea 

ist  Hoshea,  9.. 
3d  (3)  Hoshea.. 

7th  Hoshea 

9th  (9)  Hoshea. 


=  ist  Jerob.,  22  (nd). 
=  i8th  Jeroboam 

=  20th    (20)  [2ISt] 

=  (22d)  Jeroboam 
=  ist  Baasha,  24  (th)- 
=  (2_4th)_  Baasha. 
=  Ziniri,  7d. 
=  ist  Omri  (6)  12(11). 
=  (7th)  Omri. 


=  ist  Ahaziah, 2  (nd) 
=  (2d)  Ahaziah. 


=  ist  Jehu.,  28th  [27] 

=  7th  Jehu. 

=  {28th)  Jehu. 

=  ist  Jehoash,  16. 

=  2d  (2)  Jehoash. 

=  (5th)  Jehoash. 

=  [i7th]  Jehoash. 


=Interregnum,  12. 
=  ist2acharia,6mo. 
-1-5  mo. 
=  ist  Menahem,  10. 
=  (iith)  Menahem. 
:  1st  Pekah,  20. 
=  2dPekah. 
=  i7th  (17)  [i8th] 
:(2ist)  Anarchy,  9. 


Capture  of  Samaria 


THE    KINGS  143 

The  one  thing  remarkable  about  this  table  is,  that  the  dates  B.  C. 
here  given  are  none  of  them  assigned  by  oic7-seh>es,  or  by  any  hitman  au- 
thority; but  come  where  they  are  of  themselves  from  the  scripture  num- 
bers themselves  [set  opposite  to  them  in  order).  A' one  but  the  Bible  num- 
bers {and  all  the  Bible  numbers)  are  used  in  the  table;  yet  these,  simply 
interpreted  and  set  in  order,  of  theniselves  give  the  B.  C.  dates  here 
exhibited,  as  their  necessary  and  unmanufactured  result.  This  self- 
interpretation  of  the  Bible  datings,  containing  so  inany  and  so  repeated 
numbers  and  c7'oss-7-eferences,  is  a  perfect  demonstration  of  its  accia-acy. 
And  no  theojy  of  how  the  events  ought  to  be  dated,  can  avail  to  set  aside 
this  simple  artless  exhibit  of  how  the  events  are  here  in  the  Bible 
plainly  and  certainly  dated. 

%  26.  In  the  foregoing  table,  the  parts  in  parentheses  (  )  are  simple 
necessary  inferences,  the  parts  in  brackets  [  ]  are  from  Josephus;  all 
the  rest  is  taken  from  the  scripture.  What  is  remarkable  is,  there  is 
no  deviation  here  from  scripture  figures  (besides  the  current  and  com- 
plete year  often  interchanged),  except  the  3  year  overlap  upon  Jehosha- 
phat's  reign,  plainly  indicated  in  scripture,  and  the  "  23d  Jehoash  " 
changed  to  the  22d  Jehoash,"  in  accordance  with  Josephus'  copy, 
"  2ist  year  "  or  21  years.     (Ant.  7,  viii:  5.) 

The  Scripture  Numbers,   as  Above. 

There  are  in  the  table  92  scripture  numbers,  here  all  harmonized 
together,  as  follows:     In  the  days  of 

Rehoboam.  I  Ki.  xiv:  20,  21,  "22  yrs.,  17  yrs.";  ver.  25,  "the  5th 
yr.  of  Reho."     (969  B.  C.)     So  II  Chron.  xii:  13,  "  17  yrs." 

Abijam.  xv:  i,  "i8th  yr.";  ver.  2,  "3  yrs."  So  II  Chron.  xiii:  i, 
2,  "  i8th  yr,,  3 yrs." 

Asa.  XV :  9,  "  20th  yr.";  ver.  10,  "41  yrs.";  ver.  25,  "  2d.  yr.,  2yrs."; 
ver.  28,  33,  "3d  yr.,  24  yrs.";  xvi:  8,  "26th  yr.,  2  yrs.";  ver.  10,  15, 
"27th  yr.,  7d.";  ver.  23,  "31st  yr.,  12  yrs.,  6  yrs.";  ver.  29,  "38th  yr., 
22yrs."  Soil  Chron.  xvi:  I,  "36th  yr.  [26th]";  ver.  12,  "39th  yr."; 
ver.  13,  "41st  yr." 

fehoshaphat.  xxii:  i,  2,  "3  yrs.,  3d  yr.";  ver.  41,  "  4th  yr.";  ver. 
42,  "  25  yrs.";  ver.  51,  "  i7thyr.,  2  yrs.";  II  Ki.  iii:  i,  "  i8th  yr."  Soil 
Chron.  xx:  31,  "  25  yrs." 

fehoram.  II  Ki.l:i7,  "2d  yr.";  viii:  16,  "5th  yr.";  ver.  17,  "8yrs." 
So  II  Chron.  xxi:  5,  "8  yrs.";  ver.  19,  "2  yrs.";  ver.  20,  "  8  yrs." 

Ahaziah.  viii:  25,  "  12th  yr.";  ver.  26,  "  i  yr.";  ix:  29,  "nth  yr."  So 
II  Chron.  xxii:  2,  "  i  yr." 

Athaliah.  x:  26,  "28  yrs.";  ver.  4,  "6  yrs.";  ver.  5,  "7thyr."  So 
II  Chron.  xxii:  12,  "6  yrs.";  xxiii:  i,  "7th  yr." 

foash.  xii:  i,  "7th  yr.,  40  yrs.";  xiii:  i,  "23d  yr.,  17  yrs.";  ver.  10, 
"  37th  yr.,  16  yrs."     So  II  Chron.  xxiv:  i,  "40  yrs." 

Amaziah.  xiv:i,  "2dyr.";ver.  2,  "  29  yrs.";  ver.  17,  "  isyrs.";  ver. 
23,  "  15th  yr.,  41  yrs."     So  II  Chron.  xxv:  i,  "29  yrs." 

Azariah.  xv:  i,  "27th  yr.";  ver.  2,  "  52 yrs.";  ver.  8,  "38  yrs.";  ver. 
13'  "39th  yr.,  1  mo.";  ver.  17,  "39th  yr.,  10  days,";  ver.  23,  "50th 
yr.,  2  yrs.";  ver.  27,  "  52d  yr.,  20  yrs."    So  II  Chron.  xxvi:  3,  "  52  yrs." 


144  PERIOD    E 

Jotham.  xv:  32,  "  2d  yr.";  ver.  33,  "  16  yrs."  So  II  Chron.  xxvii:  8, 
"  16  yrs." 

Ahaz.  xvi:  I,  "17th  yr.";  ver.  2,  "16  yrs.";  xv:  30,  ".20th  yr.  of 
Jotham";  xvii:  i,  "  12th  yr."     So  II  Chron.  xxviii:  i,  "  16  yrs." 

Hczckiah.  xvii:  6,  "  gth  yr.  of  Hoshea";  xviii:  i,"3d  yr."  ver.  2, 
"29  yrs.";  ver.  9,  "4th  yr.=7th  yr.";  ver.  10,  "  3  yrs.,  6th  yr.^9th 
yr.";' ver.  13,  "  14th  yr."  So  II  Chron.  xxix:  i,  "29  yrs.";  ver.  "3,  ist 
yr." 

The  table  shows  so  close  a  conformity  of  our  dating  (and  that  of 
Usher)  with  the  scripture  data,  that  there  are  needed  for  difficult 
passages  only  a  few. 

Explanations. 

§  27.  Jehoram.  In  the  "  5th  year"  of  Joram  of  Israel,  Jehoram  of 
Judah  began  his  "8  years"  (II  Ki.  viii:  16,  17);  and  in  the  beginning 
of  the  "  12th  year  of  Joram,"  Ahaziah  of  Judah  began  his  "  i  year," 
(ver.  25,  26)  z.  (".,  at  the  end  of  Joram's  "  nth  year  "  (ix:  29).  Thus, 
Ahaziah's  i  year  covers  Joram's  12th  year,  since  they  both  died  at  the 
end  of  Joram's  "  12  years"  (viii:  28,  and  ix:  24,  27).  Therefore,  Jeho- 
ram's  "8  years  "  can  reach  only  from  Joi-am'S'"  5th  year"  begun  to  his 
"  12th  year  "  begun,  or  7  full  years;  and  the  "  8  years  "  must  mean  the 
8th  year  cm-rent.  But  as  Jehoram  thus  began  4  years  after  Joram  (in  his 
"  5th  year"  begun),  whose  reign  began  in  Jehoshaphat's  "  i8th  year" 
ending  (iii:  i)=2d  year  of  Jehoram's  /<?/«/  reign  (called  a  "mistake"  in 
the  Bib.  Sacra.,  Oct.,.  1870,  p.  641)— therefore,  Jehoram  begun  those 
8  -(7)  years  after  (18+4^)22  years  of  his  father  Jehoshaphat's  reign  of 
"25  years"  (I  Ki.  xxii:  42).  And  consequently,  Jehoshaphat  was  still 
alive  when  his  son  Jehoram  began  his  8  (7)  years,  just  as  is  expressly 
stated  (at  II  Ki.  viii:  16,  17).  And  the  remaining  (25 — 22^)3  years  of 
the  father's  reign  lap  over  upon  Jehoram's  8  (or  full  7),  giving  but 
(7 — 3=)4  years  of  Jehoram  alone,  after  his  father's  25  and  at  death. 

Note.  Several  writers  (Hales,  Cunningham,  Jarvis,  Bowen, 
Elliott,  Browne  in  Coleman,  Akers,  Seiss,  and  "Time  of  the  End," 
Boston,  Jewett,  1836),  entirely  neglect  the  overlap  of  Jehoram's  reign, 
calling  the  three  reigns  41+25+8,  and  so  enlarging  the  interval  back  to 
Solomon  by  4  years.  But  this  violates  II  Ki.  viii:  16,  17,  and  all  the 
dates  back  to  the  reign  of  Ahab. 

§  28.  Omri.  According  to  I  Kings  xvi:  8,  29,  there  were  twelve 
years  from  the  accession  of  Elah  to  that  of  Ahab.  So  that,  as  Elah 
reigned  one  of  those  years  (ver.  8,  15),  therefore  the  "  twelve  years  " 
of  Omri  (ver.  23)  means  the  twelfth  year  current,  or  eleven  full  years 
only;  as  in  the  case  of  all  these  adjacent  reigns  in  Israel.  The  "thirty- 
first  year"  of  Asa  here  must  mean  full  thirty-one  years;  so  that  there 
were  for  Omri  after  this,  six  full  years  to  the  "thirty-eighth  year  "  (ver. 
29),  and  "six  years"  back  to  the  "twenty-sixth  year"  (ver.  8);  /.  e., 
five  full  years  of  anarchy,  besides  one  year  left  for  Elah.    At  II  Chron. 


THE    KINGS  145 

xv:  19  and  xvi:  i.  the  "35th  year "'  and  '•36th  year  "  are  evidently  a  cor- 
ruption for  25th  and  26th;  and  Josephus  so  has  the  numbers  in  his  copy 
(So  Scott.) 

§  29.  Jehoahaz.  Accordingto  II  Kingxiii:  i,  10,  Jehoahaz  seems  to 
have  room  for  but  fourteen  of  the  seventeen  years  reign  there  assigned 
him.  Therefore,  his  reign  (Hke  so  many  in  Israel)  is  ciirrent  17th,  or 
but  sixteen  full  years;  and  the  "37th  year"  (at  ver.  10)  must  mean  37th 
ending,  or  full  thirty-seven  years  (/.  i\,  38th  beginning;  some  70  copies 
read  "39th."  See  this  explained  in  Clinton,  and  by  Newman  in  Kitto.) 
Moreover,  we  must  correct  the  "23d  year"  (ver.  i)  to  22d  year;  for, 
Josephus'  copy  has  it  "  2  ist "  (/.  e.,  ending) — and  Jehu's  28  current  or  27 
full  years  (as  in  Josephus)  reach  only  thus  far  (the  28  for  Jehu,  carrying 
us  back  to  his  conspiracy  before  Joram's  death  (II  King  ix:  14,  24.) 
This  reckoning  makes  the  "40  years  of  Jehoash  of  Judah  (xii:  i),  to  be 
current  40th,  or  full  39  years. 

^  30.  Jeroboam  II.  According  to  II  King  xiv:  17,  23,  with  xv:  i, 
there  was  a  (27th — i6th=)  11  years  r^^,?«rj/ of  Jeroboam  II  with  his 
father  Joash;  concerning  which  we  read  in  the  marginal  references  of 
Scott's  Bible,  "his  father  made  him  consort  at  his  going  to  the  Syrian 
wars."     See  also  II  King  xiii:  13,  17,  22-25. 

Note.  But  Newman  in  Kitto  prefers  to  call  the  "27th  year"  a 
corruption  for  17th  or  i6th:  so  Petavius,  Usher,  Marsham,  Clinton, 
Winer,  Bowen,  Elliott.  And  some,  without  any  warrant,  put  an  inter- 
regnum of  II  or  12  years  before  Azariah  at  xv:  i,  thus  lengthening 
that  much  the  interval  back  to  Solomon;  so  Hales,  Jarvis.  Akers, 
Comprehen.  Com.,  and  "Time  of  the  End."  But  (as  Clinton  remarks) 
this  has  no  possible  ground,  and  it  doubles  the  difficulty  about  the 
interregnum  in  Israel,  etc. 

Moreover,  from  II  Kings  xv:  8,  we  learn  that  there  were  (15  +  38  =) 
53  years  from  the  beginning  of  Jeroboam  II  to  the  accession  of  his  son, 
Zechariah;  from  which,  deducting  his  41  years'  reign  (xiv:  i},\,  we  find 
an  interregnum  of  12  years. 

Note.  Clinton  and  others  say  1 1  years.  But  Newman  in  Kitto 
prefers  to  lengthen  Jeroboam's  reign,  as  51  instead  of  41  years. 

^31.  Jotham.  We  are  told  at  II  Ki.  xvii:  I,  that  Hosheabeganhis 
9  years  at  the  end  of  the  "  12th  year  of  Ahaz;"  butinxv:  30,  he  is  said  to 
have  commenced,  or  rather  to  have  killed  his  predecessor  (with  inter- 
vening anarchy)  9  years  earlier,  namely,  in  the  "20th  year  of  Jotham." 
From  this  it  would  seem  that  Jotham  lived  4  years  after  his  "  sixteen 
years"  of  reign  ended  (xv:  n),  or  rather  find  an  explanation  given  here 
(at  ^109).      See  to  the  like  effect  the  British  Commentary  of  Jamieson. 

Note.  Newman  in  Kitto  prefers  to  reject  the  "20th  of  Jotham  "  as 
corrupt,  and  to  change  the  "20  years"  of  Pekah  (ver.  27)  to  30,  so  as 
to  cover  the  anarchy. 

^32  Hezekiah.  As  Hoshea  began  in  the  "12th  year  of  Ahaz" 
(II  Ki.  xvii:  i),  whose  successor,  Hezekiah.  began  in  Hoshea's  "  3d  year" 


146  PERIOD    E 

(i8:  i),  therefore,  there  can  be  but  3  years  between  the  accession  of 
Hezekiah  and  the  end  of  Ahaz'  12th  year;  and  Ahaz'  "  16  years  "  (xvi:  2) 
must  be  curretit  i6th,  or  only  15  full  years,  and  it  must  be  Hoshea's 
"3d  year"  ending.  Hence,  "the  6th  year  of  Hezekiah,  that  is  the 
gth  year  of  Hoshea"  (xviii:  10)  is  6  full  years  of  Hezekiah  and  9  full 
years  of  Hoshea  (xvii:i),  so  as  to  make  "the  end  of  3  years"  from  the 
"4th  year  of  Hezekiah,  which  was  the  7th  year  of  Hoshea"  (xviii:  9,  10). 
Some  wrongly  put  this  capture  of  Samaria  after  only  5  years  of  Heze- 
kiah. His  age  at  accession  was  "  25  years  "  (ver.  2),  and  his  father's 
age  at  accession  was  "20  years"  (xvi:  2),  and  the  father's  intervening 
reign  of  15  years  brings  his  age  at  death  up  to  35;  from  which,  taking 
Hezekiah's  age  then  as  "25  years,"  we  have  his  father  but  10  years 
old  at  his  birth  !  So  that,  one  or  the  other  of  those  age  numbers  must 
be  wrong. 

§  33.  The  above  are  about  the  only  scripture  points  needing  explan- 
ation. The  self-adjusting  table  here  given,  though  constructed  with- 
out any  regard  to  the  common  chronology  of  Usher,  yet  shows  a 
remarkable  agreement  with  it;  the  only  obvious  variation  being  a 
change  in  the  starting  point,  B.  C.  587  (not  588)  for  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  bringing  B.  C.  1014  (not  1015)  for  the  beginning  of  Solomon's 
reign.  This  shows  how  nearly  he  must  have  used  our  own  simple 
process  of  interpretation.  Let  us  here  note  the  common-sense  sim- 
plicity of  this. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Bible  Method. 

j;  34.  The  reason  why  all  our  numbers  in  the  tables  (^5  23,  25)  fall 
together  so  harmoniously,  without  effort  on  our  part,  and  with  scarcely 
any  deviation  from  the  scripture  text,  is  because  we  have  here  adopted 
the  only  natural  and  rational  method  of  ascertaining  what  is  the  Bible 
chronology  of  this  period.  We  have  merely  let  the  scripture  speak  for 
itself  and  harmonize  its  own  reckoning  without  interference  from  us. 
We  adopt  no  theory  (as  do  the  destructive  critics)  prejudging  how  the 
reigns  and  synchronisms  7nicst  have  been  calculated;  but  we  allow  them 
each  and  all  to  tell  their  own  story,  and  combine  as  they  will.  As  we 
have  the  reigns  and  their  multiplied  synchronisms  in  the  two  contem- 
porary kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Israel,  there  is  no  honest  way  but  to 
put  all  these  numbers  together  into  one  harmonious  whole,  speaking 
their  own  language  with  the  least  possible  change  of  figures.  This 
method  reveals  only  three  slight  self -eindciit  adaptations,  as  follows: 

^535.  (i.)  Any  single  synchronism  allows  one  year  of  variation  in 
the  reckoning;  and  a  double  synchronism  allows  a  variation  of  two 
years,  if  the  context  so  requires.     Thus,  if  a  reign  in  one  kingdom 


THE    KINGS  147 

begins  in  the  "third  year  "  of  a  reign  in  the  other  kingdom,  it  may  be 
either  near  the  beginning  or  near  the  end  of  that  third  year;  that  is, 
after  two  years  or  after  three  years  of  reign.  (See  example  II  Chron. 
xvi:  3,  comp.  I  Ki.  xv:  lo.)  Again,  if  a  reign  begins  in  the  "third  year" 
and  another  in  the  "eighth  year,"  the  interval  may  be  simply  five 
years;  or  the  first  date  may  be  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  year  and 
the  second  at  the  end  of  the  eighth  year,  giving  an  interval  of  six  years; 
or  the  first  may  be  at  the  end  of  the  third  year  and  the  second  at  the 
beginning  of  the  eighth  year,  giving  an  interval  of  but  four  years. 
{See  example  I  Ki.  xv:  i,  9,  comp.  ver.  2;  and  II  Ki.  xv:  17,  23.)  No 
greater  variation  than  this  is  in  harmony  with  the  figures;  but  a  varia- 
tion within  these  bounds  is  no  violation. 

ii  36.  (2.)  A  length  of  reign  is  ordinarily  to  be  understood  as  so 
many  full  years,  the  fraction  less  of  one  reign  being  offset  with  the 
fraction  more  of  another;  but  sometimes,  the  fractional  year  may  have 
been  (by  a  careless  way  of  the  first  scribe)  allowed  to  both  reigns,  re- 
quiring a  year  to  be  deducted  from  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  reigns. 
But  the  synchronisms  in  the  context  show  such  an  over-numbering, 
and  no  error  results.  For  example  "Jeroboam  twenty-two  years  "  is 
required  by  the  contiguous  synchronisms  to  denote  a  reign  to  his 
"twenty-second  year,"  i.  e.,  twenty-one  full  years  only.  The  fact  that 
this  usage  is  found  with  the  first  seven  kings  of  Israel,  only  shows  the 
habit  of  that  earlier  scribe;  and  it  does  not  warrant  Schwartz  (Bib. 
Sac,  Jan.,  '88)  in  imposing  this  as  a  fixed  rule  iox  all  the  kings  of 
Israel  and  denying  it  to  any  king  of  Judah.  The  artless  Bible  histo- 
rians were  not  tied  down  to  mathematical  canons  such  as  modern  critics 
are  disposed  to  invent  for  thein;  much  less  would  the  same  author 
have  two  sets  of  kings  intermingled  in  his  dating  with  a  differejif  rule 
for  each  set.  Our  only  authority  for  letting  any  reign  go  as  one  year 
less  than  its  nominal  figure,  is  the  requirement  of  the  writer's  own 
synchronisms  inthe  context,  proving  necessarily  how  he,  in  that  case, 
was  reckoning.  We  have  no  right  otherwise  to  modify  the  value  named, 
and  thus  do  violence  to  his  figures. 

>;  37.  Doctor  Orr  of  Scotland  (in  the  Pres.  Review,  Jan.,  i88g),  in 
order  to  make  out  a  scheme  of  Bible  chronology  in  accordance  with 
alleged  Assyrian  dates,  applies  the  arbitrary  rule,  that  all  Bible  reigns 
both  in  Israel  and  in  Judah  must  be  reduced  one  year;  claiming  that 
every  reign  is  given  inclusive  of  the  fractions  reckoned  at  both  ends, 
like  the  "three  days"  ascribed  to  our  Savior  in  the  tomb.  But  it  is 
altogether  vmnatural  to  suppose  that  inclusive  mode  of  reckoning 
applied  rigidly  to  all  numbers,  to  successive  reigns  and  larger  periods, 
which  certainly  were  intended  to  express  the  actual  length  of  time. 
For  instance,  the  age  of  Moses  is  given  as  "  full  forty  years  "  when  he 
fled  to  Midian  (Acts  vii:  23);  his  stay  there  is  given  as  full  "  forty  j'ears 


148  PERIOD    E 

expired"  (ver.  30);  and  his  wilderness  sojourn  is  given  as  "forty 
years  "  (ver.  26);  while  the  whole  is  summed  up  as  "  120  years  "  of  life 
(Deut.  xxxiv:  7).  And  so  of  the  reigns  and  ages  generally.  It  is  pre- 
posterous to  foist  upon  the  artless  Jewish  annals  any  such  machine 
system  of  stereotyped  and  premeditated  curtailment  as  the  destructive 
critics  are  trying  to  devise  for  the  accommodation  of  their  Assyrian 
reckoning.  The  very  diversity  and  contrariety  of  their  theories  prove 
them  to  be  all  fallacious. 

i;38.  (3.)  A  synchronism  may  require  either  a  vacancy  (anarchy  or 
interregnum)  understood  after  the  father,  or  a  regency  understood  with 
the  father  named.  But  which  is  required  in  each  case,  depends  upon 
the  surroundings  of  the  text.  Such  are  the  two  difficult  synchronisms 
of  II  Ki.  XV :  I  and  8.  The  first  presumption  is  in  favor  of  an  interreg- 
num; because  this  is  letting  the  scripture  speak  for  itself  without  any 
explanation  attempted.  And  therefore  we  let  this  interpret  verse  8; 
there  being  nothing  in  the  way  of  this  purely  biblical  interpretation. 
We  would  do  the  same  at  verse  i,  were  there  not  three  biblical  facts 
against  it.  (a.)  The  fact  that  Azariah  was  taken  "by  the  people  "  at 
or  even  before  his  father's  death,  and  made  king  (xiv:  19-21),  which  for- 
bids an  interregnum  between,  {h.)  The  fact  that  an  interregnum  here 
would  double  the  interregnum  after  Jeroboam,  which  is  impracticable. 
(c.)  The  fact  that  such  a  doubling  of  interregnum  cannot  be  avoided 
by  supposing  a  mere  regency  of  Azariah  with  his  father  to  be  referred 
to  in  verse  8,  since  verse  13.  etc.,  forbid.  Therefore,  we  have  to  con- 
clude that  verse  i  refers  to  a  regency  of  Jeroboam  with  his  father  not 
reckoned  in  his  "forty-one  years"  given  ;  and  this  harmonizes  the 
whole  account  without  any  mutilation. 

5;  39.  As  for  supposing  more  than  a  regency,  a  real  overlap  or  joint 
reign  reducing  the  length  of  reign  given,  this  can  not  be  allowed;  for 
it  would  be  a  violation  of  the  text,  which,  unless  there  is  proof  to  the 
contrary,  must  be  accepted  as  meaning  to  give  by  the  successive  reign 
lengths  the  whole  space  of  time  passed  over  in  those  reigns.  Hence 
we  can  not  let  a  supposed ]oint-veign  reduce  the  declared  lengths  of  reign; 
unless,  indeed,  there  is  an  express  statement  to  that  effect,  as  there  is 
in  one  case  onl)',  the  case  of  Jehoshaphat  and  Jehoram,  I  Ki.  viii:  16. 
It  is  sometimes  said,  as  by  Schwartz,  that  our  Bible  chronology  is  in- 
consistent, in  having  verse  8  make  an  interregnum  and  verse  i  a 
regency;  but  the  above  explanation  shows,  that,  on  the  contrai'y,  one 
consistent  rule  is  followed,  of  letting  scripture  in  each  case  speak  for 
itself,  with  no  theory  interposed,  the  Bible  numbers  being  allowed  to 
fall  into  place  of  themselves,  giving  such  result  as  they  will. 

^  40.  Note.  That  Zechariah"s  six  months  of  reign,  ver.  8,  was 
only  the  culmination  of  a  period  of  anarchy  following  Jeroboam's 
death,  appears  from  the  very  wording  of  the  narrative  in  scripture. 
At  every  other  reign  we  are  told   that  this  king  and  that  king  "  began" 


THE    KINGS  149 

to  reign  in  the  year  mentioned:  but  ni  this  particular  case  there  is  a 
striking  variation:  "  In  the  thirty  and  eighth  year  of  Azariah,  king 
of  Judah,  did  Zechariah,  the  son  of  Jeroboam  reign  [not  hi-o-i/i  to 
reign]  over  Israel  in  Samaria  six  months."  That  is,  he  only  then,  and 
for  a  few  months,  succeeded  in  getting  to  actual  reii^n  in  the  capital 
"  Samaria,''  on  account  of  a  long  preceding  anarchy,  which  now  re- 
sulted in  his  own  speedy  murder  (after  only  six  months)  by  a  usurper, 
who  in  turn  was  immediately  assassinated  by  another  usurper  Mena- 
hem— who  only  succeeded  by  regular  war  and  conquest  of  the  people 
(ver.  8-15).  Scripture  thus  makes  it  plain,  that  Zechariah's  real  claim 
to  the  throne  was  durnig  the  thirteen  years  of  anarchy,  though  his 
actual  possession  of  the  throne  was  only  the  last  six  months  of  it. 

§41.  Indeed,  all  the  last  years  of  Israel  were  so  anarchical,  that  it 
is  lio  wonder  that,  after  the  subsequent  murder, of  Pekahiah  by  the 
usurper  Pekah,  and  after  his  murder  by  the  new  usurper,  Hoshea,  (with 
aid  from  the  Assyrian  king),  this  last  usurpation  failed  for  nine  years 
to  get  Hoshea  reallv  seated  upon  the  thi^one,  there  being  that  much  of 
new  anarchy  between  the  reign-lengths  given  in  scripture.  The  cause 
of  anaixhy  in  this  latter  case  is  more  fully  shown  by  the  Assyrian 
inscription, which  (as  Schwartz  himself  informs  us)  reads:  "  I  [Tiglath- 
pileser]  slew  Pekaha,  and  Hosea  I  made  king."  As  it  was  this  very 
Assyrian  king  whom  Ahaz  of  Judah  (in  the  first  part  of  his  reign)  hired 
to  come  against  Pekah  of  Israel  (II  Ki.  xvi:  5,  7-10) — as  it  was  he  who 
really  caused  the  death  of  Pekah  (through  Hoshea  instigated  by  him), 
surely  such  new  usurpation  in  Israel,  through  a  foreign  invasion,  as 
well  as  domestic  massacre,  was  calculated  to  intensify  the  anarchy  of 
embroiled  Israel,  and  prevent  Hoshea,  for  a  long  time,  from  reaping 
the  reward  of  his  treachery,  or  being  allowed  to  occupy  in  "  Samaria  " 
the  throne  which  he  had  usui-ped  and  could  only  gain  at  length  by 
Assyria's  aid. 

But  One  Bible  Method. 

i;  42.  By  the  above  three  simple  common-sense  adaptations  of  the 
one  common-sense  method  of  interpretation,  the  Bible  numbers  (both 
reigns  and  synchronisms)  are  all  happily  reconciled  with  each  other. 
And  in  such  a  harmony  of  many  complex  reckonings,  there  is  a  moral 
assurance  that  we  have  the  mind  and  intent  of  the  Bible  writers,  such 
as  no  other  method  of  treating  the  matter  can  give.  In  contrast  with 
it,  look  at  the  mutilating  processes  applied  to  scripture  by  speculative 
manipulators  of  Assyrian  dates.  These  are ///^^r.Vjr  for  the  )-cconsfntc- 
tion  of  Bible  Chronology,  in  striking  contrast  with  our  plan  of 
simply  ascertaining  it  as  it  is.  Mr.  Schwartz  claims  that  there  are 
three  methods  of  reckoning  Bible  dates,  instead  of  the  only  correct 
way  here  claimed:  (i)  B3'  adding  up  the  lengths  of  reigns  as  given  for 
Judah;  (2)  By  adding  up  the  lengths  of  reigns  as  given  for  Israel;  (3) 
by  selecting  from  among  the  synchronisms  given  such  as  will  serve  to 
make  out  the  length  of  time  desired  ! 

This  last  is  little  better  than  the  theory  adopted  by  Dr.  Orr  (Pres. 
Quar.,  New  York,  Jan.,  '8g)  that  all  the  synchronisms  given  in  the  script- 
ure history  are  spurious,  being  interpolations  made  by  a  later  editor, 
whom  he   calls  the  synchi'onist;  so  that  he  makes  a  Bible  chronology 


150  PERIOD    E 

to  suit  himself,  using  only  such  synchronisms  as  please  him.  and 
throwing  the  rest  away!  Such  is  the  "higher"  criticism  of  chro- 
nology with  which  we  are  being  so  largely  entertained.  Who  does  not 
see,  that  every  one  of  these  conflicting  methods  is  partial,  one  sided, 
and  unfair  to  the  full  scripture  truth  ? 

i:;  43.  It  must  be  evident  to  all,  that  the  only  impartial,  unpreju- 
diced, and  honest  way  is  that  which  we  here  adopt,  \.o  let  the  Bible  iitim- 
bers  tell  their  own  story,  without  any  theories  or  canons  imposed.  This 
fair  and  faithful  method  takes  every  regnal  number  in  Judah  or  in 
Israel,  and  eve^y  synchronism  given  (without  selection),  and  combines 
the  whole,  reigns  and  synchronisms,  in  one  complete  and  consistent 
harmony,  without  any  mutilation  or  collision  of  numbers.  It  is  won- 
derful that  such  a  harmony  is  found;  and  this  is  the  best  proof  of  the 
inerrancy  of  scripture,  and  of  our  having  the  right  view  of  its  numbei's. 
How  contrary  to  this  are  the  diverse  distorting  schemes  cited  above  ! 

The  proposed  adding  up  of  reigns  in  one  kingdom  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  other,  is  entirely  one-sided,  and,  therefore  erroneous  (as  seen  in 
the  errors  of  Hales  and  others.)*  As  for  a  culling  out  of  synchronisms 
to  suit  each  theorizer's  whim,  that  is  intolerable.  Instead  of  being 
"the  synchronistic  method,"  as  Schwartz  claims,  that  is  the  abdica- 
tion of  all  real  method.     Instead  of  having  three  diverse  chronologies 

*  Take,  for  example,  what  the  book  editor  of  the  S.  S.  Times  (June 
9,  1894,  p.  363)  asserts:  "  There  are  just  tw^o  systems  of  chronology  for 
this  period  (from  Solomon  to  the  capture  of  Samaria),  the  biblical  and 
the  Assyrian,  each  computed  at  its  prima  facie  value.  The  true  chro- 
nology IS  either  one  or  the  other  of  these  two,  or  else  some  combination 
of  them  that  has  not  yet  been  demonstrated  and  adopted.  The  bibli- 
cal numerals,  computed  at  what  appears  to  be  their  value,  make  the 
first  year  of  Jeroboam  I  to  be  982  B.  C. — The  chronology  of  Usher  is  a 
compromise,"  etc. 

\\'hat  is  said  here  about  the  issue,  as  between  the  one  chronology  of 
the  Bible  and  the  alleged  chronology  of  Assyriology,  is  just  right.  But 
there  can  be  no  coniproniise  or  "  combination  "  between  them,  without 
a  rejection  of  both.  And  the  one  obvious  Bible  Chronology  is  here  very 
foolishly  given  as  the  added  I'eigns  of  JudaJi,  witli  all  the  other  script- 
ure da  tings  ignored.  Thus:  260  years  of  added  reigns  -f-  722  B.  C. 
taken  for  the  capture  of  Samaria  ="982  B.  C."  here  given  for  the 
death  of  Solomon.  Of  course,  such  an  ////-scriptural  dating  will  have 
to  be  "  compromised  "  and  rejected.  But  the  obviously  scriptural  date 
derived  from  all  the  datings  harmonized,  we  show  to  be  254  years  of 
reigns  -(-  720  B.  C.  at  the  capture  of  Samaria  =  974  B.  C,  as  the  true 
Bible  date  of  Solomon's  death;  and  the  issue  is  between  this  alone  and 
the  claims  of  Assyriology.  The  254  is  demonstrably  the  correct  script- 
ure interval,  and  not  a  compromise   even  if  Usher  does  have  it. 

We  insist  upon  starting  with  scripture,  ' '  computed  at  its  prima 
facie  value,"  which  is  the  true  value;  and  the  260  years  taken  at  its 
value  for  the  interval  before  us.  as  made  up  from  a  part  of  its  datings 
with  the  rest  ignored,  is  certauily  not  the  scripture's  correct  or  ''prima 
facie  value." 


THE    KINGS  151 

of  the  Bible,  we  are  offered  three  jDij-easonable  theories  beclouding  its 
one  simple  reckoning,  with  neither  of  which  have  we  anything  to  do. 
Our  own  procedure  is  as  different  from  all  these  as  light  is  from  dark- 
ness. It  can  not  be  stigmatized  as  "  another  theory  "  in  competition 
with  those  theories.  We  have  no  theory  on  the  subject;  we  do  not 
believe  in  studying  scripture  with  preformed  theories  to  be  therefrom 
proved.  All  our  business  is  to  discover  the  one  self-asserting,  self- 
harmonizing  chronology  of  the  Bible.  If  it  is  found  clashing  with  some 
outside  dating,  and  is,  therefore,  to  be  rejected  as  untrue,  that  is  an 
after  question,  which  must  be  honestly  decided  by  itself. 

^  44.  It  is  plain  that  the  sacred  writers  iueant  what  they  say;  and 
they  either  told  the  truth  (to  the  disproval  of  what  contradicts  them), 
or  else  they  mistook  the  facts  and  wrote  their  history  incorrectly. 
What  they  meant  and  said  (whether  true  or  false)  is  a  matter  of  im- 
partial exegesis  simply,  which  we  have  resolved  to  know.  And  we 
think  we  have  ascertained  it  very  nearly  in  the  tables  we  have  drawn 
up.  It  is  entirely  disingenuous  for  scholars  to  twist  and  tear  the 
Sacred  Word,  trying  to  distort  its  simple  teachings  into  alleged  agree- 
ment with  something  they  have  found  outside  of  it.  There  is  no  hon- 
oring of  scripture  in  such  forced  agreement.  It  were  better  to  concede 
discrepancy  between  sacred  and  profane  history,  and  let  either  record 
prevail  according  to  the  weight  of  its  own  authority.  Let  us  own  the 
truth,  and  treat  the  Book  honestly   "though  the  heavens  fall." 

CORROBOR.\TIONS. 

g  45.  The  harmony  of  dates  as  herein  set  forth  leaves  so  little  diffi- 
culty with  any  passage,  and  is  at  the  same  time  so  undesignedly  accord- 
ant with  the  accepted  Usher  chronology,  as  to  commend  itself  at  once 
as  the  true  Bible  dating.  But  there  are  certain  important  corrobora- 
tions of  our  reckoning.  First,  we  have  the  confirmatory  evidence  of 
prophecy.  Ezekiel  (in  iv:  1-9)  foretold  "40  years"  for  filling  up  the 
iniquity  of  Judah,  that  is,  from  the  i8th  of  Josiah  (when  he  began  his 
prophecy,  Ch.  i:  i,  2),  to  the  final  capturing  four  years  after  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  (Jer.  lii:  12,  30) — i.  e.,  from  B.  C.  623  to  583;  and 
he  foretold  "390  years"  for  final  finish  of  Israel,  from  the  finished 
revolt  of  Jeroboam  a  year  after  Solomon's  death,  to  this  same  final 
ravaging  of  the  whole  land — i.  e.,  from  B.  C.  973  to  583,  just  as  in  our 
table.  Josephus  (Ant.  10,  iv:4)  thus  reckons  the  prophecy  of  Ezekiel  as 
covering  "391  years"  from  the  death  of  Solomon;  minus  40  =  351 
(corrupt  361)  to  the  "  i8th  of  Josiah." 

>;  46.  The  490  years  interval  from  temple  to  temple  (J^  49),  w-as 
regarded  as  the  fulfillment  of  prophecy,  as  in  II  Chron.  xxxvi:20,  21. 
"They  were  servants  to  him  [the  king  of  Babylon]  and  his  sons,  until 
the  reign  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia.     To  fulfill  the  word  of  the  Lord  by 


152  PERIOD    E 

the  mouth  of  Jeremiah,  until  the  land  had  enjoyed  her  Sabbaths;  for  as 
long  as  she  lay  desolate  she  kept  Sabbath,  to  fulfill  three-score 
AND  TEN  YEARS,"  foretold.  (See  Lev.  xxv:4-26,  and  xxvi:34,  35;  Jer. 
XXV :  II,  12,  and  xxix:  10;  Zech.  i:  12.)  These  seventy  Sabbatic  years  of 
captivity  x  7  =  490  years,  or  10  jubilee  periods,  reached  from  the  com- 
pletely finished  temple  at  B.  C.  513  (F,  §  35)  back  to  the  finished  tem- 
ple of  Solomon  at  B.  C.  1003.  This  Divine  arrangement  of  time  (made 
to  preserve  the  true  Sabbatic  reckonmg,  and  to  induce  a  Sabbatic 
revival  after  the  captivit)'),*  was  an  intimation;  that,  as  soon  as  God's 
people  got  fully  equipped  for  their  worship,  they  began  to  decline  there- 
from. Sad  truth  of  all  ages!  We  have  here  a  signal  confirmation  of 
the  Bible  Chronology  of  this  Sabbatic  interval  from  temple  to  temple, 
as  taught  also  by  Josephus  and  the  Jews. 

§  47.  Uncanonical  Jewish  authors  confirm  our  reckoning,  showing 
the  Bible  datings  as  well  understood  in  their  times.  Josephus  (Ant.  10, 
viii:4)  expressly  states  the  duration  of  the  Jewish  kings,  including  "  20 
years"  for  Saul,  as  being  "514  years,  6  months  and  10  days;"  which 
is  our  own  addition  of  the  reigns  just  as  the  Bible  gives  them  (even  to 
the  months  and  days),  from  20  years  before  David  to  the  death  of 
Jehoiachin  the  last  surviving  king,  (38 — 11  =)  27  years  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  (II  Ki.  xxiv:8,  15,  and  xxv:2,  4,  27;  Jer.  lii:5,  31). 
Thus  we  havfe  20  years  +  David,  40  -\-  Sol.,  40  +  Israel,  254  -|-  Judah 
133  -f  27  of  captivity  =  514  years  from  B.  C.  1074  to  560. 

Josephus  also  (9,  xiv:  i)  gives  the  duration  of  Israel  (reckoning 
simply  by  its  given  reign-lengths  added),  as  240  yrs.,  7  mo.,  7d.," 
while  the  Bible  figures  (changing  his  Jehu  27  to  28)  add  up  i  year  more, 
as  here  at  i^  23.  (For  the  months  and  days,  see  II  Ki.  xv:  8,  13,  and  I  Ki. 
xvi:  15.)  We  see  by  this  how  accui^atel}'  preserved  we  have  the  Bible 
numbers,  just  as  Josephus  and  the  Jews  originally  had  them.  More- 
over, the  Jewish  Priest  Record  copied  by  Josephus  (20,  x)  gives  the 
old  standard  interval,  from  Solomon's  temple  to  the  Cyrus  decree  for 
rebuilding  it,  as  "466  yrs.,  6  mo.  and  10  days,"  /.  c.,  from  B.  C.  1003 
to  537-6 — just  as  our  table  has  it.  (See  further  testimony  of  Josephus 
3-t  >^  55'  of  Eupolemus  and  Demetrius  at  >^  54,  and  of  the  Talmud 
at  ^  24.) 

^  48.  There  has  been  discovered  in  our  day  a  wonderful  monu- 
mental confirmation  of  the  Bible  chronology  as  our  table  sets  it  forth. 
"In  the  stele  of  Mesha,  King  of  Moab,  he  states  that  Omri  and  his 
house  reign  exactly  40  years."  (See  Schwartz.)  Now  we  are  told  of 
Omri  (at  I  Ki.  xvi:  23),  "Six  years  reigned  he  in  Tirzah;"  /.  c.,  as  only 
the  ruler  of  a  faction  (ver.  21,  22) — the  other  6  of  his  total  "  12  years  " 
being  alone  known  abroad  as  actual  reign  without  a  rival,  began  in  the 
"31st  year  of  Asa,"  in  the  now  permanently  established  capital 
"Samaria"  (ver.  24).     And  from  the  beginning  of  Omri's  6  years  of 

*  See  Neh.  x:  31;  Jos.  Ant.  11,  viii:  5. 


THE    KINGS  153 

actual  reign  to  the  death  of  his  last  grandson,  Jorani  (the  end  of  the 
dynasty),  is  by  our  Bible  Chronology  just  40  years,  B.  C.  923-S83.* 

What  is  striking  about  the  agreement  is,  that  this  chronology  was 
formulated  by  us  (as  given  in  the  table  §  25)  many  years  ago,  from  the 
Bible  alone,  before  anything  was  known  of  the  monumental  inscription 
from  Moab.  The  peculiar  value  of  this  40-year  verification  is,  that  it 
covers  the  joint  reign  of  Jehoram  of  Judah  with  his  father,  Jehosha- 
phat,  the  only  case  where  our  chronology  has  an  overlap  of  the  regnal 
years,  and  proves  our  reckoning  (at  that,  its  most  difficult  point)  to  be 
correct.  Besides,  it  confirms  the  /////  13  years  between  Ahab  and 
Jehu,  which  proves  that  it  can  not  be  those  kings  referred  to  (as  alleged) 
in  the  Assyrian  canon. 

Note.  Schwartz  tries  to  make  the  40  years  of  the  Moabite  in- 
scription cover  the  whole  rule  of  Omri,  before  he  got  full  possession  of 
the  throne  in  Samaria  (contrary  to  "the  31st  of  Asa"  m  verse  23); 
and  for  that  purpose  he  reduces  the  reigns  as  found  in  Scripture,  from 
(Omri  6+Ahab  2i-|-Ahaziah  i+Joram  12=)  40  —  See  i;  25 —  down  to 
(5_|_ig_)-i-j-g=)  35-I-5  more  of  Omri's  previous  rule=40  in  all.  But 
what  a  perversion  is  hei^e  of  the  Bible's  figures  for  Ahab  and  Joram! 
This  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  steps  taken,  in  the  now  popular  recon- 
struction of  Bible  numbers  in  the  interest  of  alleged  Assyriology. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Jubilee  Reckoning. 

5^  49.  This  Bible  dating  is  thoroughly  fixed  and  assured  by  the 
jubilee  reckoning  of  the  Jews.  They  and  their  scribes  noted  from  the 
first  the  striking  fact,  that  the  final  founding  of  the  second  temple  by 
royal  decree,  in  the  2d  of  Darius  (B.  C.  520),  was  just  490  years  after 
the  first  founding  of  Solomon's  temple  in  the  4th  of  Solomon  (put  at 
B.  C.  loio);  these  490  years  being  just  10  jubilee  periods  of  49  years 
each,  or  in  other  words  "70  weeks"  of  years  like  those  described  in 
Daniel's  prophecy.  And  what  was  still  more  notable,  the  dedication 
of  Solomon's  temple  7  years  after  its  founding  (or  in  B.  C.  ido3),  was 
thus  the  Year  of  Jubilee;  giving  490  years  or  70  weeks,  or  10  jubilee 
periods,  thence  to  the  9th  of  Darius  (B.  C.  513)  as  also  a  jubilee  year. 

ij  50.  It  was  for  this  reason,  although  Ezra  vi:  15,  records  the  sec- 
ond temple  as  "  finished  "  at  the  close  of  "the  6th  year  of  the  reign  of 
Darius  the  king,"  yet  "the  dedication"  which  is  thereupon  described 
(ver.  16)  as  connected  with  a  passover  following  (ver.  19-22),  is  said  by 
Josephus  to  have  been  "  in  the  9th  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius,"  the 

*In  the  Bib.  Sacra  (July,  1870,  p.  642),  our  reckoning  of  the  40  years 
is  verified,  but  there  is  much  unnecessary  confusion  thrown  over  the 
computation. 


154  PERIOD    E 

temple  being  "  built  in  7  years'  time,"  he  says,  as  was  the  first  temple. 
(Antiq.  11,  iv:  7.)  No  doubt  there  was  an  adjustment  of  both  these 
dedicatory  occasions  to  the  jubilee  dates,  to  which  providentially  the 
building  operations  were  brought  so  nigh.  And  the  coincidence  in 
each  case  was  well  fitted  to  stir  the  Jewish  heart.     (See  §  46.) 

§  51,  This  ten-fold  jubilee  reckoning,  or  70  weeks'  dating  (made 
more  correctly  491  years  by  reckoning  the  4th  of  Sol.  as  B.  C.  ion)  thus 
fixed  in  their  temple  histoi'y,  and  mixed  with  their  most  sacred  associa- 
tions, became  the  favorite  measuring  line  of  Jewish  history,  by  which 
as  a  talismanic  time-length  of  490  years,  they  ever  afterwards  en- 
deavored to  map  out  all  the  ages.  Step  by  step  they  theorized  with 
this  magic  meter  applied  to  Bible  dates;  even  sometimes  corrupting 
figures  by  conjectural  emendations,  when  they  did  not  quite  agree  with 
inexorable  jubilee  adjustment.  Until,  after  a  time,  they  had  a  full- 
fledged  jubilee  theory  of  Jewish  history,  which  shows  itself  in  the 
"  Book  of  Jubilees,"  issued  in  about  the  New  Testament  time. 

§  52.  The  republic  of  scholars  owe  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  Professor 
Schodde  of  Alleghany  University,  for  his  invaluable  service  in  recently 
translating  from  the  Ethiopic  this  memorable  book  of  Jewish  lore, 
showing  the  Hebrew  method  of  dating  scripture  in  the  time  of  Chi'ist. 
Thanks  to  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  giving  his  translation  to  the  public 
(see  the  Nos.  during  1886-7);  though  it  now  can  be  had  in  book  form. 
The  same  jubilee  reckoning  appears  m  the  modern  Jewish  chronology, 
still  followed  by  them;  which  was  set  foi'th  soon  after  the  Book  of 
Jubilees,  viz.,  in  about  A.  D.  130,  through  the  labors  of  the  famous 
Rabbi  Akiba.  That  chronology  calls  this  year  (A.  D.  1888)  their  year 
A.  M.  5649;  putting  the  creation  3761  years  B.  C.  And  these  3761 
years  B.  C.  they  make  up  as  follows  (as  given  by  Hales):  Before  the 
flood  i65(6)+to  Abraham  29(o)+to  the  exodus  5o(3)+to  Solomon's 
temple  48oth+to  the  captivity  4io-|-7o+4oto  the  Seleucic  era+312  to  A. 
D.=total  3760)4^,  or  the  3761st  year. 

§  53.  The  Jews  in  their  ignorance  of  history  during  the  dark  ages 
following  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament,  regarded  the  Persian  Empire 
as  having  lasted  but  52  years,  to  the  32d  year  of  Darius  Hystaspes, 
the  last  date  of  the  Bible.  (Neh.  xiii:  6.  See  Prideaux' s  Connection, 
/.,  p.  218,  anno  486.)  And  of  these  52  years,  the  modern  Jewish  chro- 
nology gets  but  40  after  the  70  years  of  captivity,  as  if  20  years  only 
were  allowed  from  the  temple  dedication  to  the  20th  Artaxerxes.  For, 
as  Jewish  tradition  put  the  finishing  of  the  temple  20  years  after  the 
Cyrus-decree  for  restoring  it,  which  decree  ended  the  70  years  cap- 
tivity as  prophesied  by  Jeremiah,  (Dan.  ix:  i,  2;  Jer.  xxv:  i,  11,  12, 
comp.  Ezra  vi:  3,  15),  we  see  that  half  the  Persian  40  allowed  in  the 
modern  Jewish  chronology,  really  belonged  before  the  temple  dedica- 
tion. 


THE    KINGS  155 

So  that,  we  find  therein  the  full  jubilee  reckoning,  thus:  From 
creation  to  the  exodus  (as  thei'e  adjusted)  i656+290+503=245oth  year, 
or  50  jubilees;  then  480  (construed  as  reaching  to  the  beginning  of 
Solomon  and  of  preparation  for  the  temple,  I  Ki.  v:  17,  18,  as  indicated 
in  the  arrangement  of  the  LXX  text)-|-io  of  Solomon  to  the  dedica- 
tion=490  years,  or  10  jubilees;  or  480+410-1-704-20=980  years,  /.  t'.,  20 
jubilees  to  the  dedication  of  the  2nd  temple  (as  if  490  from  B.  C.  1013 
to  533  and  513  for  "the  second  temple  bulit"),  viz.,  70  jubilees  back  to 
the  creation;  and  then  20+3i2-(-A.  D.  159=490  years,  or  the  "70 
weeks  "  of  Daniel,  made  to  reach  on  beyond  their  own  day  (A.  D.  130), 
with  current  jubilee  reckoning  ignored  now  that  their  land  was  lost* 
so  as  to  controvert  the  Christian  claim,  that  the  70  weeks  of  Daniel 
were  more  than  out,  and  Messiah  had  already  come. 

i;  54.  Wethus  know,  from  the  modern  Jewish  chronology,  as  well 
as  from  the  reckoning  of  Josephus,  and  of  Eupolemus  before  him,  and 
other  ancient  authorities  (as  we  fully  show  elsewhere,  that  the  ten- 
jubilee  period  of  490  years  from  temple  to  temple,  was  w^ell  established 
from  the  first,   as  the  basis  of  all  ancient  chronology.      Eupolemus, 

*  Schwartz  tells  us,  that  some  of  the  rabbis  give  the  taking  of 
Jerusalem  by  Titus  as  35  years  after  a  jubilee.  That  is,  having  lost  the 
jubilee  reckoning  in  passing  from  the  Old  Testament,  they  started  a 
new  jubilee  pei'iod  from  the  famous  Maccabean  Era,  B.  C.  163,  in  place 
of  the  current  jubilee  B.  C.  170);  which,  after  (4  times  49=)  196  years 
brought  a  jubilee  at  (196 — 163  B.  C.=)34  A.  D.  (m  place  of  the  correct 
A.  D.  27);  so  that  35  years  from  its  enduig  (in  A.  D.  35)  reached  to  Sep- 
tember, A.  D.  70.  This  made  a  jubilee  come  63  years  afterward,  at  A. 
D.  132,  exciting  the  Jews  remaining  about  Jerusalem  then  to  revolt  in 
hope  of  the  city's  i^estoration,  as  had  occurred  63  years  after  its  pre- 
vious ruin  (reckoned  as  from  B.  C.  583  to  520,  as  in  Josephus.  See 
J^esL  of  Jos.,  §28-30).  This  Rabbinical  reckoning  of  jubilees  was  evi- 
dently gotten  up  at  that  era  (A.  D.  130)  when  their  false  modern  chro- 
nology was  invented;  and  it  Was  what  led  to  the  Jewish  outbreak  which 
the  Emperor  Hadrian  then  quelled.     (See  Period  A,  B,  J5  15.) 

But  even  this  Rabbinical  chronology  retains  traces  of  the  correct 
Old  Testament  dating  of  the  Jewish  kings  and  captivity,  with  the  true 
jubilees  tJien  existing.  Thus:  It  has  the  accession  of  Solomon  as  if 
rightly  at  B.  C.  1013,  minus  "410  years"  to  B.  C.  603,  minus  "70 
years"  to  B.  C.  533  for  Cyrus  and  '"second  temple  built,"  minus  20 
years  to  B.  C.  513  (or  603  to  583  and  513),  for  Josephus'  gth  Darius  and 
the  temple  finished.  But  this  9th  Darius  being  falsly  treated  as  at  the 
accession  of  Alexander  the  Great  (as  conquering  this  Darius)  in  B.  C. 
532  (a  loss  of  181  years),  a  minus  20  reached  B.  C.  312,  the  Seleucic 
Era.  This  made  (20-|-20=)40  years  only  from  the  well  known  B.  C. 
312,  the  spurious  "  B.  C.  352,"  as  the  time  of  ist  Cyrus  decreeing  "the 
second  temple  built."  (As  taken  from  Ganz  by  Hales,  my  notes  iv:  11.) 
Those  who  give  Darius  23  more  years,  or  32  years  in  all  (as  cited  above 
from  Prideaux),  must  thus  have  reduced  the  previous  "70  years  to  47 
years,  as  if  from  587  B.  C.  to  540,"  for  the  dates  for  "the  temple 
burnt"  and  again  "built." 


15G  PERIOD    E 

mentioned  by  Clement  Alex.,  as  vvritin.a^  in  B.  C.  174,  giving  5149  years 
from  the  creation  down  to  B.  C.  294.  This  he  could  not  make  out 
without  the  490  years  from  temple  to  temple.  The  same  is  indicated 
by  Demetrius,  who  wrote  in  B.  C.  220  a  history  of  the  Jewish  kings. 
(See  citation  of  Alex  Polyb.,  in  Euseb.  Praep.  Eiuu^o-.,  ix:2i,  Jackson's 
Chronol.) 

>^  55-  Josephus'  testimony  (  War.  6,  iv.  3,  and  x.  i)  is,  tliat  from 
the  completion  of  the  second  temple  back  to  the  completiijn  of 
Solomon's  temple,  was  ("  1130 — 639"^49i  years,  /.  c,  490  years  to  Sol- 
omon's dedication  put  as  one  year  later.  And  this  interval  he  makes 
up  as  follows:  The  70  years  captivity-|-the  "639"  years  at  its  close 
=709  years  (or  ''2177 — 1468");  and  this  709-|-42i=='"  1130  years"  back 
to  Solomon's  finished  temple  (after  70+421=491  years);  which  1130-I-9 
of  Sol. -f  40  of  David="  1179  years"  to  the  beginning  of  David's  reign; 
/.  <'. ,  ("II 79 — 709  "=) "  470 '  ■  [not '  477  '  ]  before  the  70  years  of  captivity, 
begun  at  the  coniplctcd  captiiriug  {i\\it  23d  of  Neb.,  Jer.  Hi:  30,  Antiq. 
10,  ix:  7). 

The  470 — 49=421  being  thus  from  9  3'ears  of  Sol.  to  the  23d  of  Neb., 
it  is  417  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  the  19th  of  Neb.,  or  (417-1-7 
=)424  }'ears  duration  of  the  temple  from  its  founding  at  2  years  of 
Sol.  (One  year  more  being  here  in  the  war  allowed  {ox joint  reign  with 
his  father — whereas,  in  the  Antiq.,  3  years  put  to  Solomon  alone  reduce 
the  424  to  423.)  The  423-4  years  duration  of  the  temple  is  just  the 
scripture  reckoning;  and  is  plainly  made  up  thus:  The  133  years  after 
Samaria  captured-|-the  254  before  (to  B.  C.  974)+36-37  of  Sol=423 
— 4  years  (to  B.  C.  loio-ioii).  Thus  we  see  that  Josephus  used  the 
scriptural  2^4  years  duration  of  Israel,  not  the  gross  260  of  added  reigns 
m  Judah,  as  Schwartz  contends.  This  harmonized  reckoning  of 
Josephus  is  fully  expounded  elsewhere;  and  all  his  values  show  that 
490  years  were  universally  understood  as  separating  temple  from 
temple. 

Given  Jubilee  Years. 

i^  56.  We  ha\e  sufficient  indications  of  the  very  years  in  which  the 
ancient  jubilees  occurred,  to  fix  the  place  where  the  490  year  period 
from  temple  to  temple  belongs.  The  building  and  dedication  of 
Solomon's  temple  plainly  indipate  the  Sabbatic  and  jubilee  year 
(I  Ki.  vi:  37,  38):  "  In  the  4th  year  of  Solomon  was  the  foundation  of 
the  house  of  the  Lord  laid,  and  in  the  nth  year  was  the  house  finished. 
So  was  he  seven  years  in  building  it."  (Ch.  viii:  2):  "And  allthemen 
of  Israel  assembled  themselves  unto  King  Solomon,  at  the  feast  of  the 
month  Ethanim,  which  is  the  seventh  month  [the  month  for  sounding 
the  jubilee  trumpet].  And  they  brought  up  the  ark  of  the  Lord.  So 
the  king  and  all  the  children  of  Israel  dedicated  the  house  of  the  Lord. 
And  at  that  time  Solomon  held  a  feast,  and  all  Israel  with  him,    *     *    * 


THE    KINGS 


seven  days  and  seven  days,  even  fourteen  days;'"  /.  f.,  7  for  the 
ordinar}'  celebration,  and  7  for  the  jubilee  dedication  (Ver.  2,  63, 
65.)  "They  kept  the  dedication  of  the  altar  seven  days  and  the 
feast  seven  days;  and  on  the  three  and  twentieth  day  of  the  seventh 
month  he  sent  the  people  away  unto  their  tents,  glad  and  merry  in 
heart  for  the  goodness  of  the  Lord."  So  the  tabernacle  feast  lasted 
(as  usual)  from  the  15th  to  the  22d  of  that  7th  month;  and  if  the 
dedication  iea.st  finn-A-tf  it  from  the  Sth  to  the  15th,  it  would  make 
14  days  (the  Sth  to  the  22d).  The  festivities  would  begin  from  the  Sth 
(at  sunset),  and  on  the  moi^ning  of  the  tenth  the  jubilee  trumpet  had  to 
sound,  as  commanded  in  Lev.  xxv:  9:  "Seven  Sabbaths  of  yeai's  shall 
be  unto  to  thee  forty  and  nine  years.  Then  shalt  thou  tause  the 
trumpet  of  the  jubilee  to  sound  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month; 
in  the  day  of  atonement  shall  ye  make  the  trumpet  sound  throughout 
all  your  land." 

i^  57.  Usher,  and  most  chronological  authorities,  accept  that  year 
B.  C.  1003,  following  Solomon's  temple,  as  the  Jewish  jubilee.* 

Reckoning  by  the  vulgar  text  of  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  we  shall  have  S  years 
of  building  the  temple+the  "  480th  "=487  years  from  that  jubilee  back 
to  the  exodus.  So  that  the  common  chronology  has  the  first  ten 
jubilees,  or  70  weeks'  period  of  490  years,  reaching'from  (490-487=) 
J  yt'crrs  before  leaving  Egypt  to  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple. 
That  is,  the  first  jubilee  period  of  49  years  is  reckoned  from  three 
years  before  the  exodus  to  six  years  after  the  entering  of  Canaan, 
when,  at  the  7th  year  of  Joshua,  as  the  first  Sabbatic  of  Canaan 
possession,  is  understood  to  have  been  the  celebration  of  the  first 
jubilee  finished. 

^  58.  Thus  we  read  (at  Josh,  xi:  23):  "So  Joshua  took  the  whole 
land  *  *  *  and  theland  rested  from  war."  (Ch.  xiv:  6-10):  "And 
Caleb  *  *  "  said  unto  him  *  *  *  forty  years  old  was  I  when 
Moses  sent  me  to  spy  out  the  land  *  *  *  and  now,  behold  the  Lord 
hath  kept  me  alive,  as  he  said,  these  forty  and  five  years  *  *  *  and 
now,  lo,  I  am  this  day  fourscore  and  five  years  old."  That  is,  five 
years  after  the  arrival  in  Canaan,  in  the  6th  year,  the  land  had  pretty 
much  been  conquered.  Thereupon,  in  the  6th  year,  the  land  was 
divided  by  lot  (xviii:  i,  10,  and  xix:  51);  and  cities  of  refuge  were  estab- 
lished   (ch.    XX,   xxi).     And    by    this   view   the   seventh    year   having 

*  ' '  This  dedication  did  not  take  place  till  eleven  months  after  the 
completion  of  the  edifice.  The  delay  most  probably  originated  in 
Solomon's  wish  to  choose  the  most  fitting  opportunity,  when  there 
should  be  a  general  rendezvous  of  the  people  in  Jerusalem;  and 
that  was  not  till  the  next  year.  That  was  a  jubilee  vfiAR;  and  he  re- 
solved on  commencing  the  solemn  ceremonial  a  few  days  before 
the  feast  of  tabernacles,  which' was  the  most  appropriate  of  all  seasons." 
{Dr.  Jamieson  in  Brit.  Com.  on  I  Ki.  viii:   i.) 


158  PERIOD    E 

come,  "the  Lord  gave  them  rest  round  about"  (xxi:  43,  45);  and 
with  Sabbatic  rest  closed  with  jubilee  rejoicing,  the  two  and  a  half 
tribes  were  dismissed  from  war  to  their  home  beyond  Jordan  (ch.  22). 
Not  till  "  a  long  time  after"  this  was  it  that  "Joshua  waxed  old  and 
stricken  with  age"  (xxiii:  i;  xiii:  i,  out  of  place).  Compare  Period 
D,  §  8,  9. 

§  59.  From  that  7th  of  Joshua  (made  the  8th  by  Usher),  B.  C.  1444 
back  through  the  first  jubilee  period  of  49  years,  we  are  carried  to  B. 
C.  1493,  three  years  before  the  exodus  in  B.  C.  1490  (Usher  says 
1491).  And  from  that  B.  C.  1493  at  the  beginning  of  jubilees,  the  first 
ten  jubilees  or  490  years  take  us  to  Solomon's  dedication,  B.  C.  1003. 
And  the  next  490  take  us  to  B.  C.  513,  the  dedication  of  the  second 
temple  (according  to  Josephus,  above).  Whether  the  former  of  these 
periods  is  right  (as  given  by  the  vulgar  text  of  I  Ki.  vi:  i),  or  whether 
that  text  ("  480")  and  that  reckoning,  taken  from  the  modern  Jewish 
chronology,  which  is  plainly  founded  on  the  peculiar  jubilee  theory 
of  Jewish  history,  is  a  corruption  suggested  by  and  meant  to  com- 
plement the  490  period  between  the  two  dedications,  which  is  un- 
doubtedly correct;  this  question  is  fully  discussed  by  us  elsewhere, 
and  we  can  not  enter  upon  it  here.     (See  Period  D.) 

§  60.  Though  the  appointed  Sabbatics  and  jubilees  were  but  little 
maintained  by  the  apostate  Jews,  yet  the  feckoning  of  them  was  kept  up 
down  to  the  New  Testament  times  and  as  long,  at  least,  as  Jerusalem 
remained.  In  their  faithful  observance  was  a  divine  promise  of  two 
years'  food  extraordinarily  provided  (Lev.  xxv:  11,  19,  22):  "I  will 
command  my  ble  ssing  upon  you  in  the  sixth  year,  and  it  shall  bring 
forth  fruit  for  three  years.  And  ye  shall  sow  the  eighth  year,  and  eat 
of  old  fruit  until  the  ninth  year,  until  its  fruits  come  in  ye  shall  eat  of 
the  old  store."  But  when  they  failed  to  carry  out  the  jubilee  enfran- 
chisement required,  the  promise  failed,  and  disaster  came.  The 
seventy  years  of  captivity  were  brought  in  that  the  land  might 
"  enjoy  her  Sabbath"  of  which  she  had  been  deprived.  (Lev.  xxvi: 
20,  i},,  35;  II  Chron.  xxxvi:  21.) 

g  61.  From  the  jubilee  of  Solomon,  B.  C.  1003,  six  jubilee  periods- 
or  294  years  carry  us  to  B.  C.  709,  when  there  was  evidently  a  jubilee, 
in  about  the  17th  year  of  Hezekiah's  reign  according  with  the  descrip- 
tion given.  (Isa.  xxxvi:  i;  xxxvii:  8,  30.)  "And  this  shall  be  a  sign 
unto  thee:  ye  shall  eat  this  year  such  as  grows  of  itself;  and  the  second 
year  that  which  springeth  of  the  same;  and  in  the  third  year  sow  ye  and 
reap,  and  plant  vineyards  and  eat  the  fruit  thereof."  This  makes  Hez- 
ekiah's  reign  begin  about  B.  C.726,  as  required  by  the  accepted  chro- 
nology given  above  (g  25). 

§  62.  Other  jubilees  must  havecome  at  B.  C.  611,  near  the  end  of  Jo- 
siah's  reign;  and  at  B.  C.  562,  "in  the  midst  of  the  years  "  of  captivity 


THE    KINGS  159 

(Hab.  iii:  2).  In  that  year,  the  (B.  C.  598 — 562=)"  37th  year  of  the  cap- 
tivity of  Jehoiachin"  (II  Ki.  xxv:  27;  Jer.  Hi:  31-35),  he  was  appropri- 
ately given  his  jubilee  liberty,  and  raised  to  honor:  so  that,  by  this 
foretokening  of  captivity  to  end,  God  did  "in  wrath  remember 
mercy."  Another  jubilee  came  at  B.  C.  513,  when  the  second  temple 
was  dedicated  (according  to  Josephus)  and  the  captivity  came  fully  to 
an  end;  and  then  again  at  B.  C.  464,  the  close  of  Xerxes'  reign. 
From  that  date,  ten  jubilees  or  490  years  carry  us  to  A.  D.  27  as  the 
jubilee  year.  This  it  plainly  was,  leading  Christ,  then  in  the  first  year 
of  his  ministry,  to  read  in  the  synagogue  from  Isaiah  (very  likely  the 
appointed  lesson  for  the  occasion)  that  memorable  jubilee  passage: 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  he  hath  sent  me  to  set  at 
liberty  them  that  are  bruised,  to  preach  the  acceptable  year  of  the 
Lord.  And  he  closed  the  book,  *  *  *  And  he  began  to  say  unto 
them:  This  day  is  this  Scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears."  (Luke  iv:  17, 
21).  That  is,  "  In  this  jubilee,  this  acceptable  year,  I  come  preaching 
jubilee  freedom  and  deliverance  to  the  captives  of  sin." 

§  63.  At  49  years  before  this  A.  D.  27,  /.  c,  in  B.  C.  23,  the  14th  of 
Herod  (from  B.  C.  37),  occurred  the  last  previous  jubilee,  and  a  sad 
time  of  famine  it  was.  Josephus  (Antiq.  15:  xx:  i)  says:  "  Then  in  this 
very  year,  which  was  the  13th  year  of  the  reign  of  Herod,  very  great 
calamities  came  upon  the  country  *  *  *  The  ground  was  barren. 
When  the  fruits  of  the  first  year  were  spoiled,  and  whatever  they  had 
laid  up  beforehand  was  spent,  the  misery  increased  upon  them;  and 
that  not  only  in  this  year,  but  what  seed  they  had  sown  perished  also, 
by  reason  of  the  ground  not  yielding  its  fruits  in  the  second  year,"  the 
14th  of  Herod. 

i^  64.  Concerning  this,  Whiston,  the  editor  of  Josephus,  obsei'ves: 
"This  famine  for  two  years  that  afflicted  Judea  and  Syria  in  the  13th 
and  14th  years  of  Herod,  which  are  the  23d  and  24th  years  before  the 
Christian  era,  was  remarkable.  It  is  well  worth  our  observation  here, 
that  these  two  years  were  a  Sabbatic  year  and  a  year  of  jubilee,  for 
which  Providence,  during  the  theocracy,  used  to  provide  a  triple  crop 
before  hand;  but  they  became  now,  when  the  Jews  had  forfeited 
that  blessing,  the  greatest  years  of  famine  since  the  days  of  Ahab." 

Given  Sabbatic  Years. 

§  65.  Thus  evident  are  the  true  jubilee  reckonings.  There  are 
similar  plain  indications  of  Sabbatic  years.  The  ideal  Sabbatic  was  a 
time,  not  only  for  rest  and  recuperation  of  the  land  lying  fallow  for 
a  year,  but  for  rest  and  recuperation  to  the  agriculturist  himself, 
usually  so  driven  and  confined  (as  we  see  in  our  day)  by  the  exacting 
and  unremitting  duties  of  farm  life.  How  else  can  //i?  have  any  "  vaca- 
tion," such  as  men  in  other  walks  of  life  plan  for  themselves?    When, 


160  PERIOD    E 

among  the  Jews,  the  land  lay  at  rest,  and  debts  were  released,  and  bond- 
men went  free,  then  there  was  a  season  of  leisure,  convenient  for 
religious,  social,  educational  or  political  convocations;  when  the  people 
generally  could  be  stirred  up  to  any  great  enterprise  or  reform  that 
might  be  needed. 

§  66.  Such  a  revival  seems  to  have  occurred  in  the  Sabbatic  that  came 
70  years  after  the  founding  of  Solomon's  temple,  viz.,  in  B.  C.  940. 
For  that  appears  to  be  the  15th  fea.T  of  Asa's  reign  in  Judah,  reck- 
oning 36  more  of  Solomon-(-i7  of  Rehoboam-|-3  of  Abijah+14  of  Asa= 
70  years  from  beginning  to  beginning  of  Sabbatic.  Then,  early  in 
Asa's  15th  year  (according  to  II  Chron.  15th  ch.),  thei'e  was  a  notable 
time  of  reformation,  assembling  and  worship. 

g  67.  And  28  years  later,  at  the  Sabbatic  of  912  B.  C,  near  the  be- 
ginning of  Jehoshaphat's  reign,  may  have  occurred  the  remarkable 
work  of  missionary  preaching  recorded  in  the  17th  chapter,  particularly 
at  ver.  7-10,  when  the  king  sent  many  evangelists  to  "teach  in  the 
cities  of  Judah,"  and  "they  had  the  book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord  with 
them,  and  went  about  throughout  all  the  cities  of  Judahand  taught  the 
people  and  the  fear  of  the  Lord  fell  upon  all  the  kingdoms  of  the. land 
that  were  round  about."  This  is  said  to  have  been  in  Jehoshaphat's 
"3d  year,"  which,  if  reckoned  in  this  particular  case  from  Asa  as 
reigning  but  40  full  years  (xvi:  13),  or  rather,  if  reckoned  from  Asa's 
total  disability  the  year  before  (ver.  12),  agrees  with  the  Sabbatic  B.  C. 
gi2,  after  42  years  from  Asa's  accession. 

g  68.  In  like  manner  John  Baptist  came  preaching  in  the  Sabbatic 
of  A.  D.  26-7,  which  culminated  in  the  jubilee  of  A.  D.  27.  A  won- 
derfully convenient  season  that,  for  such  a  wide-spread  reformation, 
when,  with  more  than  ordinary  leisure  the  people  flocked  to  him  from 
every  direction,  and  there  "went  out  to  him  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea, 
and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan."     (Mat.  iii:  5.)* 

The  well-established  calculation  of  Daniel's  "seventy  weeks"  of 
"Messiah  the  Prince"  (ix:  24-27),  is  from  the  Sabbatic  ending  in 
B.  C.  457,  the  7th  year  of  Artaxerxes,  when  Ezra  went  to  Jerusalem 
with  the  king's  decree  of  restoration,  oiaward  490  years  to  the  Sabbatic 
ending  in  A.  D.  34,  when  Saul  was  converted,  and  the  gospel  was  fully 
opened  to  the  Gentiles.  The  preaching  of  John  Baptist,  of  Christ,  and 
of  the  Apostles,  "  confismed  the  covenant  with  many  for  one  week" 
Sabbatic,  from  A.  D.  26-7  to  34;  and  "  in  the  midst  of  the  week,"  A.  D. 
30,  the  death  of  Christ  caused  the  "sacrifice  and  oblation  to  cease," 
the  Messiah  being  then  "cut  off." 

*That  we  have  the  right  reckoning  of  the  sabbatics  is  further  evident 
from  Josephus'  description  of  a  Sabbatic  at  the  death  of  Simon,  B.  C. 
135,  and  at  Herod's  conquest  of  Jerusalem,  B.  C.  37  (Antiq.  13,  vni:  i, 
and  14,  xvi:  2).     Also  at  B.  C.  163.     (See  Period  F.) 


THE    KINGS  161 

ij  6g.  But  the  most  distinctly  notable  Sabbatic  in  Jewish  history,  is 
that  of  B.  C.  590,  /.  f.,  21  years  after  the  previous  jubilee  of  B.  C.  611. 
This  was  at  the  end  of  the  8th  year  of  Zedekiah's  reign,  at  the  close  of 
whose  II  years'  reign  (3  years  later)  in  B.  C.  587,  Jerusalem  was 
destroyed  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  (Usher  says  B.  C.  588,  Hales,  586;  we 
elsewhere  prove  that  it  was  587.)  For  Zedekiah  "  after  8  years" 
(Josephus,  Ant.  10,  vii:  3)  of  subordination  rebelled  against  Nebuchad- 
nezzar (II  Chron.  xxxvi:  11-13,  II  Ki.  xxiv:  17-21).  So  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar came  against  Zedekiah  "  in  the  gth  year  of  his  reign  "  (xxv:  i), 
besieging  Jerusalem  till  its  destruction  at  the  end  of  Zedekiah's  11 
years  (ver.  2,  8). 

>;  70.  The  siege  was  raised  temporarily  by  the  approach  of  Pharaoh 
from  Egypt  (Jer.  xxxvii:  53);  whereupon  Jeremiah  was  cast  into 
prison  (ver.  6-21).  "  In  the  loth  year  of  Zedekiah  "  the  siege  was  re- 
newed (xxxii:  1-3).  Jos.  (Ant.  10,  vii:  4)  says  it  was  on  "the  loth  day 
of  the  loth  month  in  the  loth  year  of  Zedekiah,"  just  a  year  after  the 
siege  began  before  (II  Ki.  xxv:  i),  with  "  18  months  "  of  further  siege, 
till  the  city  was  taken  "  on  the  gth  day  of  the  4th  month  in  the  [end  of 
the]  nth  year  of  Zed."  (Jos.  viii:  i,  2).  Now,  befo7'e  this  return 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  to  the  siege  (Jer.  xxxiv:  21,  22),  /.  e.,  some  two  years 
befoi'e  the  taking  of  the  city,  Jeremiah  rebuked  Zedekiah  and  the 
princes  for  having  broken  a  covenant  made  at  the  Sabbatic  year 
(then  just  past)  giving  liberty  to  the  bondmen,  according  to  the  Sab- 
batic law  of  Moses  (ver.  8-22).     See  Period  F,  §  29. 

^  71.  This  proves,  that  that  Sabbatic  was  three  years  before  the  tak- 
ing of  the  city,  when  Zedekiah  had  reigned  8  years,  and  revolted  from 
Nebuchadnezzar.  Taking  advantage  of  the  Sabbatic  year  of  libera- 
tion (B.  C.  590),  Zedekiah  declared  his  own  independence,  securing 
the  popular  enthusiasm  in  it  by  pledging  also  the  required  Sabbatic  en- 
franchisement of  those  in  servitude.  (Chap,  xxxiv:  8,  g.)  "This  is 
the  word  that  came  unto  Jei'emiah  from  the  Lord,  after  that  the  king 
Zedekiah  had  made  a  covenant  with  all  the  people  which  were  at 
Jerusalem,  to  proclaim  liberty  unto  them;  that  every  man  should  let 
his  man-servant,  and  every  man  his  maid-servant,  being  a  Hebrew  or 
a  Hebrewess,  go  free;  that  none  should  serve  himself  of  him,  to  wit. 
of  a  Jew,  his  brother." 

^  72.  This  was  a  concession  to  duty  and  to  God,  adhered  to  but  a 
little  while,  under  the  alarm  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  approach  to  the 
siege.  But  when  the  siege  was  temporarily  raised,  about  the  end  of 
Zedekiah's  gth  year  (B.  C.  58g),  he  became  haughty,  and  the  pledge 
was  disowned  and  broken  (ver.  10,  11).  "Now  when  all  the  princes 
and  all  the  people  which  had  entered  into  the  covenant,  heard  that 
every  one  should  let  his  man-servant  and  every  one  his  maid-servant 
go  free,  that  none  should  serve  themselves  of  them  any  more,  then  they 


162  PERIOD    E 

obeyed,  and  let  them  go  free.  But  afterward  they  turned,  and  caused 
the  servants  and  the  hand-maids  whom  they  had  let  go  free,  to  return, 
and  brought  them  under  subjection  for  servants  and  for  hand-maids." 

§  73.     Thereupon,  Jeremiah  denounced  God's  anger. 

Verse  12-17:  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel:  I  made  a 
covenant  with  your  fathers,  in  the  day  I  brought  them  forth  out  of  the 
the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  ot  bondage,  saying.  At  the  end  of 
seven  years  let  ye  go  every  man  his  brother,  a  Hebrew,  which  hath  been 
sold  unto  thee;  and  when  he  hath  served  thee  six  years,  thou  shalt  let 
him  go  free;  but  your  fathers  hearkened  not  unto  me,  neither  inclined 
their  ear.  And  ye  were  now  turned,  and  had  done  right  in  my  sight, 
in  proclaiming  liberty  ever\'  man  to  his  neighbor;  and  ye  had  made  a 
covenant  before  me,  in  the  house  that  is  called  by  my  name;  but  ye 
turned,  and  polluted  my  name,  and  caused  every  man  his  servant,  and 
every  man  his  hand-maid,  whom  he  had  set  at  liberty,  at  their  pleasure, 
to  return,  and  brought  them  into  subjection,  to  be  unto  you  for  serv- 
ants and  for  hand-maids.  Therefore,  thus  saith  the  Lord,  ye  have 
not  hearkened  unto  me,  in  proclaiming  libertj'  every  one  to  his  brother 
and  ever}'  man  to  his  neighbor:  Behold,  I  proclaim  a  liberty  for  you, 
saith  the  Lord,  to  the  sword,  to  the  pestilence,  and  to  the  famine;  and 
I  will  make  you  to  be  removed  unto  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth," 
etc.* 

*  Prideaux  (Connec.  Pref.,  pageix)  discards  all  jubilee  and  Sabbatic 
reckoning,  saying  of  this  passage  (Jer.  xxxiv:  8-10):  "Every  Hebrew 
servant  was  to  be  released  in  the  7th  year  of  his  servitude,  though  it 
were  neither  a  jubilee  nor  a  Sabbatical  year."  But,  though  this  general 
principle,  that  no  Hebrew  should  serve  over  six  years,  was  the  first 
thing  announced  (at  Ex.  xxi:  i)  before  the  Sabbatic  year  was  arranged 
(at  Ex.  xxiii:  9,  10).  yet  upon  the  full  establishment  of  that  Sabbatic 
year  as  a  land-sabbath  (Lev.  xxv:  1-7,  20),  it  was  constituted  a  ''year 
of  release''  (Deut.  xv:  i,  g,  12,  and  xxxi:  10),  for  the  canceling  of  all 
Hebrew  debts,  and  consequently  all  claims  for  service.  That  the  fixed 
Sabbatic  year  was  thus  introduced  for  the  carrying  out  and  insuring  of 
the  previously  ordained  principle  of  7th  year  rest  and  release,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact  that  Moses  thus  set  it  forth  fully  in  his  final  address 
in  Deuteronomy. 

He  there  (in  Deut.)  says  nothing  about  it  as  a  land-sabbatJi  (de- 
scribed in  Leviticus),  but  he  fulh'  explains  it  as  a  bajikruptcy  laiu,  or 
"  release  "  of  debtors,  and  a  release  from  servitude.  Notice  particu- 
larly, that  in  the  midst  of  his  discourse  on  this  "  year  of  release  "  com- 
ing "at  the  end  of  every  seven  years  "  (Deut.  xv:  ver.  i,  g,  and  ending 
at  ver.  18),  he  introduces  at  ver.  12  the  release  of  service  "in  the  7th 
year,"  without  any  particle  or  note  of  transition  as  if  to  another  sub- 
ject, showing  plainly  that  he  reduces  the  whole  to  one  Sabbatic  insti- 
tution. When  the  Sabbatic  year  came  round,  and  they  were  releasing 
all  their  brother  Hebrews  from  debt,  they  could  not  help  being  reminded 
of  that  special  debt  of  service  which  they  were  required  also  to  release. 
They  then  would  see  that  this  obligation,  too,  was  carried  out;  and 
especially  when  (as  in  Jer.  xxxiv:  8-17),  the  congregation  generally  took 
it  up  as  a  reform.  This  reformation  made  (as  we  show)  in  the  very 
"  year  of  release,"  or  Sabbatic  year  fending  B.  C.  5go),  as  well  as  that 
other  refoinnation,  of  Nehemiah  (x:  31),  made  in  the  Sabbatic  year 
(ending  B.  C.  443),  just  21  Sabbatics  afterward,  both  show  that  we 
rightly  calculate  the  Sabbatic  years  of  the  Jews. 


THE    KINGS  103 

^  74.  Here  we  have  an  express  exhibit  of  Sabbatic  law,  and  its  his- 
torical application,  a  thousand  years  after  its  establishment;  showing 
us  in  striking  language  the  exact  date  0/  its  reckoning  down  to  that  time 
<B.  C.  590),  and  proving  that  we  have  the  Sabbatic  and  jubilee  reckon- 
ing correct,  with  the  destruction  of  the  city  in  B.  C.  587.  The  chro- 
nology of  Jewish  history  back  to  Solomon's  temple  is  thus  placed  on 
an  impregnable  basis. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Unfounded  Theorizings. 

^  75.  Thurman  in  his  chronology,  (The  Bible  Chronology  estab- 
lished by  Wm.  C.  Thurman,  3d  Ed.,  Phila.,  1864),  laboring  to  make  out 
a  particular  scheme  of  dates,  undertakes  to  get  the  Sabbatic  of  Zede- 
kiah  later  in  his  reign,  or  near  the  time  of  the  city's  capture,  instead  of 
three  years  before,  as  we  have  proved  it  above.  He  says  the  covenant 
of  emancipation  was  not  made  until  under  the  alarm  of  Zedekiah's 
sending  to  Jeremiah  at  the  first  siege  in  Zedekiah's  ninth  year  (Jer. 
xxxvii:  3-5);  and  even  then  he  claims  that  it  was  only  a  covenant  in 
anticipation  of  the  Sabbatic  year,  which  did  not  begin  (he  alleges)  till 
the  next  spring,  the  last  of  Zedekiah's  tenth  year.  But  this  makes 
the  Sabbatic  itself  to  be  spent  in  a  re-enslavement  of  bondmen,  who 
had  been  freed  before  it  began  !  for  they  had  certainly  enjoyed  a 
period  of  actual  freedom  (xxxiv:  10,  11,  16).  And  after  W\&  rebuke  for 
-their  re-enslavement,  the  siege  had  not  re-begun  (ver.  21,  22),  viz.,  in 
the  tenth  of  Zedekiah  (xxxii:  i,  2),  /.  <;'.,  eighteen  months  before  the 
capture  of  the  city.  How  certain  that  their  temporary  release  was 
ended  at  least  two  whole  years  before  the  city  was  destroyed.  How 
impossible  any  such  theory  as  that  of  Thurman  ! 

i?  76.  He  thus  claims  that  the  Sabbatic  began  as  late  as  the  spring 
of  B.  C.  588  (instead  of  590),  and  so  twenty-one  years  before,  in  the 
spring  of  B.  C.  609,  when  Josiah  died.  Otherwise,  he  claims,  Josiah 
would  commence  offensive  war  in  a  Sabbatic  year,  which  could  not  be. 
But,  as  the  true  jubilee  reckoning  here  shown  has  the  Sabbatic  ended 
on  the  day  of  atonement  in  the  autumn  of  B.  C.  590,  and  so  of  B.  C. 
611,  it  was  all  over  a  year  later  in  610,  the  year  before  Josiah's  death; 
that  is,  long  before  he  entered  the  war  in  which  he  was  slain.  More- 
over, Thurman  makes  the  Sabbatic  fourteen  years  before,  to  be  in  B. 
C.  623,  the  eighteenth  of  Josiah,  instead  of  the  correct  625.  And  still 
more  strangely,  he  makes  that  eighteenth  of  Josiah  (as  B.  C.  623)  to 
be  the  jubilee  Sabbatic  !  whereas  the  jubilee  was  B.  C.  611,  as  we  have 
thoroughly  proved. 

i;  77.  Thus  wildly  does  Thurman  speculate;  and  all  his  chronology 
of  the  ages  is  founded  on  this  misplacement  of  all  the  Sabbatics  by 


101  PERIOD    E 

two  years  and  of  all  the  jubilees  by  twelve  years  !  "  This  is  only  a 
specimen  of  the  many  reckless  and  uncritical  theories  of  chronology 
that  have  been  put  forth  in  our  day.  We  are  sorry  to  say  that  the 
scholarly  Bunsen  himself  indulges  in  such  fanciful  theorizings.  And 
very  recently,  a  writer  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  (January,  1888)  sets 
forth  with  much  ingenuity  a  scheme  of  the  sort.  He  sets  aside  the 
whole  established  chronology  of  Jewish  history,  giving  a  new  reckon- 
ing throughout;  which  he  bases  upon  a  jubilee  theory  of  his  own, 
with  the  established  dating  of  the  jubilees  and  Sabbatics  (as  shown 
above)  entirely  ignored.  He  starts  his  jubilees  backwai^d  from  A.  D. 
32  put  as  a  jubilee  !  instead  of  the  well  known  A.  D.  27;  thus  having 
no  jubilee  and  no  Sabbatic  in  all  his  i^eckoning  correct. 

i^  78.  He  puts  the  "seventy  weeks"  as  reaching  from  jubilee 
to  jubilee,  /.  c.,  from  his  A.  D.  32  back  490  years  to  his  458  B. 
C.  (he  says)  as  a  jubilee  year;  instead  of  the  connect  jubilee  464.  He 
thus  has  not  even  learned  how  to  carry  any  number  of  years  from  a 
date  A.  D.  to  a  date  B.  C,  or  vice  vei'sa,  viz.,  with  i  extra  added  to 
the  date  (because  of  two  years,  i  B.  C.  and  i  A.  D.,  with  no  year  o 
between;  so  that,  from  A.  D.  34  to  B.  C.  437  are  490,  not  491  years). 
His  jubilee  A.  D.  32  requires  jubilee  B.  C.  459,  not  458  as  he  puts  it, 
entirely  oblivious  of  even  chronological  arithmetic.  Thus,  all  his 
jubilee  and  Sabbatic  reckoning,  back  through  the  dates  of  the  Jewish 
kings  and  the  whole  Bible  history,  is  based  on  this  erroneous  and 
inconsistent  calculation.  And  so,  by  his  own  peculiar  jubilee  theory, 
he  gets  (B.  C.  458-1-490=)  948  B.  C.  as  a  jubilee  year — and  then  he  has 
(B.  C.  948-f-490^)  1438  B.  C.  as  the  beginning  of  jubilee  periods  <?/ his 
Exodus,  instead  of  Usher's,  two  or  three  years  before  the  Exodus. 

i^  79.  But  as  he  has  the  death  of  Solomon  in  B.  C.  929  (or  forty-five 
years  after  its  Bible  date,  B.  C.  974);  and  as  he  has  also  devised  a 
peculiar  date  for  the  Exodus  as  B.  C.  1438;  therefore,  in  order  to  use 
"the  480th  year''  of  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  he  has  to  say  (1438— 48oth=)  959  B. 
C.  for  "the  fourth  of  Sol."'  or  962  for  the  beginning  of  his  reign. 
Thus  he  has  arbitrarily  reduced  the  reign  of  Solomon  from  the  script- 
ural forty  (or  39  sole)  to  thirty-three  years  only  (from  B.  C.  962  to 
929)  !  And  he  has  the  dedication  of  the  temple  in  the  nth  of  Solomon 
or  B.  C.  952,  four  years  before  his  jubilee  of  948  B.  C.  It  is  only  by 
such  mutilating  of  numbers,  such  unsabbatic  reckoning  of  events,  that 
the  destructive  critics  are  enabled  to  lessen  by  forty  or  fifty  years  the 
scriptural  time  back  to  Solomon,  as  they  feel  obliged  to  do  in  order  to 
satisfy  the  supposed  demands  of  Assyrian  chronology.  This  process 
of  mutilation  is  applied  to  all  the  multiplied  regnal  numbers  and 
synchronisms  so  interlocked  throughout  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chron- 
icles— with  utter  disregard  of  jubilee  and  Sabbatic  requirement.  And 
this  course  is  pursued  as  if  on  the   presumption,  that  any  sort  of  crit- 


THE    KINGS  165 

ical  handling  will  answer  for  the  Bible — no  matter  how  authentic 
and  well  proved  its  data — to  save  a  pagan  record  (supposed  to  be  de- 
ciphered and  explained  without  possibility  of  mistake)  from  appearing 
to  have  any  misspelling  of  names  or  any  defect  of  reckoning 
about  it  ! 

"i  80.  Thus  the  current  method  of  procedure  is,  Jiist  to  fix  out  from 
inscriptions  excavated  of  late  in  Assyria,  a  pagan  chronology  assumed 
to  be  perfect  and  infallible;  and  t/ieji  to  attempt  a  reconstruction  of 
the  sacred  writers  into  harmony  with  it.  The  time  has  fully  come  for 
a  reversal  of  this  pi'ocess.  We  have  first  ascertained  what  the  Bible 
chronology  is,  and  must  be,  in  the  harmony  of  its  own  consistent 
exegesis;  and  now  only  are  we  prepared  to  learn  if  the  Assyrian 
inscriptions  can  be  reconciled  with  it.  Not  God's  word  harmonized 
with  a  heathen  record,  but  the  heathen  record  harmonized  (it  may  be) 
with  God's  well  verified  word.  That  second  stage  of  the  process  must 
be  reserved  to  another  article.  The  subject  may  well  be  investigated 
from  this  Bible  standpoint;  with  the  presumption  thus  fixed,  that,  by 
multitudinous  datings  of  diverse  writers  in  different  kingdoms,  fortified 
by  numerous  verifications,  there  is  no  chance  of  mistaking  the  Bible 
chronology  back  to  the  reign  of  David;  and  that  (unless  otherwise  dis- 
proved) there  is  no  event  of  human  history  whose  date  is  more  certain 
or  more  simply  demonstrable,  than  the  dedication  of  Solomon's 
Temple  in  B.  C.  1003. 


PART    III. 

ASSYRIOLOGY  AND  THE  JEWISH   KiNGS. 

SHOWING    THAT    THE    BIBLE    CHRONOLOGY    CAN    NOT    BE    IMPEACHED. 

^  81.  We  have  shown  that  Scripture  has  an  exact  and  certain  Chro- 
nology; especially  fixing  the  interval  of  Israel's  duration  from  the 
accession  of  Jeroboam  I  to  the  capture  of  Samaria  as  254  years,  from 
B.  C.  974  to  720.  But  now  Assyriology  comes  forward,  and  with  its 
excavated  and  deciphered  inscriptions,  claims  to  prove  that  the  Bible 
Chronology  is  wrong,  having  the  times  of  Menahem  and  Azariah  over 
twenty  years,  and  the  times  of  Ahab  and  Jehu  (with  all  beyond)  over 
forty  years  too  far  back.  We  are  here  to  investigate  whether  the 
Assyrian  inscriptions  do  give  a  different  dating  to  the  kings,  or  whether, 
on  the  other  hand,  they  can  be  harmonized  with  the  Bible  Chronology. 
The  larger  part  of  the  inquiry  comes  under  two  heads,  (I)  as  to  "  Pul  " 
of  Assyria  and  "  Ahaz  "  of  Judah,  (II)  as  to  Ahab  and  Jehu  of  Israel. 


PERIOD    E 


FIRST  DIVISION. 

"  PuL  "  OF  Assyria  and  "  Ahaz  "  of  Israel. 

CHAPTER  I.— Who  Was  "  Pul,  King  of  Assyria?" 

//  AV.  .IT'.-  IQ,  3g:  I  Chrnn.  5:  2b. 

g  82.  While  many  monuments  and  inscriptions  of  the  earher  and 
the  later  Assyrian  kings  have  been  found  and  deciphered  within  the 
past  generation,  the  period  for  25  to  50  years  preceding  Tiglath-pileser 
is  i-emarkably  destitute  of  any  discovered  inscriptions.  "The  total 
absence  of  contemporary  dated  documents  during  these  I'eigns  (previ- 
ous to  Tiglath-pileser)  is  remarkable;  and  the  Assyrian  Canon  is  here 
the  only  proof  of  the  reigns  of  these  kings."  {Geo.  Smith,  Ep.  Can., 
■6.  S'j,  1/6.) 

For  this  reason,  the  statements  of  different  Assyriologists  concern- 
ing these  kings  and  their  reigns,  are  very  mixed  and  confusing.  The 
Assyrian  "  Eponym  Canon  "  indicates  the  following  reigns,  as  given  by 

Smith: 

Vul-nirari,  beginning  about  B.  C.  812. 

Shalmaneser,       "  "  783. 

Assur-daan,  "  "  773. 

Assur-nirari,         "  "  755. 

Tiglath-pileser,    "  "  745. 

§83.  Concerning  the  first  of  these,  "Vul-nirari,"  Rawlinson  (in 
Smith's  Bible  Die,  Art.  Pul)  says:  "The  Assyrians  have  a  king,  the 
grandson  of  Samsi-vul,  whose  name  is  read  very  doubtfully  as  '  Vul- 
lush'  or  'Iva-lush,'  at  about  the  period  when  'Pul'  must  have  lived 
(say  B.  C.  800-750).  He  states  that  he  made  an  expedition  into  Syria," 
etc.  Chamber's  Cyc.  (1880)  calls  him  "  Iva-lush,  probably  the  Pul  of 
the  Scriptures."  It  also  says :  "  With  this  king  ends  the  first  dynasty 
(at  Tiglath-pileser),  in  which  we  have  eighteen  monarchs  from  Bel- 
lush  to  Iva-lush  (1273-747  B.  C),  where  begins  the  later  Assyrian  Em- 
pire." The  "eighteen  monarchs  "  include  the  four  upper  names  given 
above,  and  yet  the  writer  says  the  uppermost  (Vul-nirari)  ends  "the 
earlier  empire."  The  Encyc.  Brit.  (1887)  calls  him  not  Vul-nirari  but 
"  Rimmon-nirari,  811-782  B.  C."  And  it  adds:  "  The  first  Assyrian 
Empire  came  to  an  end  in  B.  C.  744,  being  overthrown  by  the  usurper 
Tiglath-pileser  after  a  struggle  of  three  or  four  years.  He,  in  740,  took 
tribute  of  Menahem  (which  a  false  reading  in  the  Old  Testament 
ascribes  to  a  non-existent  Pul." 

§  84.  Rawlinson  (in  Smith's  Bible  Die.  Art.  Assyria)  says,  that 
after  "  Salmanasur  (B.  C.  860-825),  his  grandson  (Vul-nirari,  the  inter- 
mediate father  being  Samsi-vul)  is  thought  to  be  Pul,  Phul,  or  Phalech, 


THE    KINGS  167 

the  first  Assyrian  king  named  in  Scripture.  *  *  *  By  the  synchron- 
ism of  Menahem,  the  date  of  Pul  may  be  determined  to  be  about  770 
B.  C,  /.  e.,  twenty-three  years  before  Babylon  became  independent, 
according  to  Ptolemy's  Canon,  in  B.  C.  747."  This  is  the  view  of 
George  Smith,  the  distinguished  Assyriologist,  in  his  "Assyrian  Epo- 
nym  Canon."  The  British  commentary  of  Dr.  Jamieson  (1872)  says: 
"This  name  'Pul'  has  been  recently  identified  with  that  of  Phalluka 
on  the  monuments  of  Nineveh,  and  that  of  '  Menahem '  has  been  discov- 
ered also." 

Prof.  Oppert  (1868)  gave  the  names  of  the  kings  thus:  Samsi-vul= 
"  Samas-bin;  "  Vul-nirari^"  Belochus  "  (with  Semiramis);  "  Shalmane- 
ser;  "  Assur-daan  =  "  Assur-edibel;  "  Assur-nirari^"  Assur-likhis." 
Rev.  D.  H.  Haigh,  another  Assyrian  scholar  (1871)  gave  the  names 
thus:  Samsi-vul^"  Samsi-barku;  "  Vul-nirari^"  Barka-narar,"  "  Sal- 
manaris;  "  Assur-daan="  Assur-idili;  "  Assur-nirari^"  Assur-narar;  " 
Tiglath-pileser="Tukulti-palesar."  (See  in  Geo.  Smith's  Ep.  Can.,  p. 
3-6.) 

^  85.  In  this  diversity  of  the  decipherings,  it  is  somewhat  difficult 
to  determine  the  exact  truth.     We  have  here  found  the  reign  beginning 

B.  C.  812  (and  taken  as  that  of  "  Pul"  by  George  Smith,  and  Cham- 
bers' Cyc,  and  Smith's  Bible  Die),  given  with  seven  different  spellings 
of  the  king's  name,  viz.,  as  Vul-nirari  (by  the  Canon  of  Geo.  Smith), 
as  Rimmon-nirari  (by  the  Encyc.  Brit.),  as  Barku-narar  (by  Haigh),  as 
Bel-ochus  (by  Oppert),  as  Pul,  Phul,  or  Phalech  (by  the  Bible  Die), 
as  Phalluka  (by  the  British  Com.),  and  as  Iva-lush  or  Vul-lush  (by 
Chambers'  Cyc.  and  Rawlinson).  We  can  only  say,  that  the  "Vul" 
in  the  Canon  forms  a  sufficiently  near  identification  with  the  "  Pul  "  or 
Phul  of  the  Scriptures. 

Now  then,  in  consistency  with  the  Scripture  dating,  we  may  adopt 
either  of  three  theories  concerning  the  identity  of  "Pul."  (i.)  We 
may,  with  the  authors  cited  above,  consider  Pul  as  the  Assyrian  king 
"  Vul-nirari"  (or  Phal-luka,  or  Bel-ochus,  or  Iva-lush),  who  ascended 
the  throne  in  B.  C.  812.  Or  (2),  we  may  recognize  Pul  in  the  Assyrian 
king  "  Assur-daan  "  (or  Assur-dana-pul)  who  ascended  the  throne  in  B. 

C.  773,  as  being  the  famous  "  Sar-dana-pulus  "  at  the  end  of  the  earlier 
Assyrian  Empire.  Or  (3),  we  may  regard  Pul  as  the  subsequent  Tig- 
lath-pileser  himself  (or  Takulti-pal-eser  or  Pulus),  in  the  character  of  a 
usurping  king  of  Assyria  long  before  his  regular  accession  to  the  throne 
at  Nineveh  in  B.  C.  745. 

I.       VUL-NlRARI. 

§  86.  George  Smith  (in  the  Ep.  Can.,  p.  183)  thus  gives  his  reasons 
for  accepting  this  king  as  the  "  Pul  "  of  Scripture: 

"  It  has  been  one  of  the  greatest  problems  of  Assyriologists  to  dis- 
cover which  king  of  Assyria  is  called  Pul  in  the  Bible.     This  question 


168  PERIOD    E 

forms  the  key  of  the  whole  chronological  problem.  My  own  theory  for 
the  solution  of  the  problem  is  founded  on  the  principle  I  have  followed 
out  in  all  these  dates,  the  principle  of  taking  the  Assyrian  records  to 
be  correct  as  to  Assyrian  dates,  and  the  Hebrew  records  as  to  Hebrew 
dates.  The  date  I  fix  for  the  accession  of  Zachariah,  king  of  Israel, 
(and  Menahem)  is  B.  C.  773;  according  to  our  marginal  dates,  the  sub- 
mission of  Menahem  to  Pul  took  place  within  two  years  of  this,  that 
is,  in  B.  C.  771.  Now  it  is  a  curious  fact  that  in  this  period,  at  the 
commencement  of  the  reign  of  Menahem,  the  Assyrian  Canon  registers 
two  successive  expeditions  to  Palestine,  in  B.  C.  773  to  Damascus,  and 
in  772  to  the  neighboring  city  of  Hadrach.  These  expeditions  so  closely 
correspond  in  time  with  the  Biblical  date  of  Pul's  expedition,  that  I  am 
strongly  of  opinion  that  one  of  these  campaigns  was  the  occasion  on 
which  Menahem  invoked  the  aid  of  the  Assyinan  monarch. 

"The  expedition  of  B.  C.  773  occurs,  however,  according  to  the 
Canon,  in  the  reign  of  Shalmaneser  HI,  whose  name  can  not  by  any 
process  be  tortured  into  a  resemblance  to  Pul.  This  objection  I  think 
can  be  explained  by  a  curious  notice  in  two  inscriptions  of  Vul-nirari, 
the  predecessor  of  Shalmaneser.  From  this  notice  I  judge  that  Shal- 
maneser was  the  son  of  Vul-nirari,  and  did  not  reign  independently, 
but  was  associated  with  his  father  during  his  lifetime;  and  I  believe 
that  Vul-nirari  continued  to  reign  at  least  as  late  as  B.  C.  773.  The 
passage  in  question  reads:  '  Palace  of  Vul-nirari,  the  great  king,  king  of 
nations,  king  of  Assyria.  The  king,  whom  in  his  son,  Assur,  king  of 
the  spirits,  has  renowned,  and  a  dominion  unequaled  has  given  to  his 
hand.'  This  allusion  to  Vul-nirari  being  renowned  through  his  son 
points  to  his  being  associated  in  the  government. 

"Again,  in  his  principal  inscription,  Vul-nirari  celebrates  a  special 
expedition  to  Damascus,  and  immediately  before  it  states  that  he  took 
tribute  from  Tyre,  Sidon,  the  land  of  Omri  (or  Israel),  Edom  and 
Philistia.  Now,  the  expedition  to  Damascus  in  B.  C.  773,  is  the  only 
one  in  the  Eponym  Canon  to  that  place  which  comes  anywhere  near 
the  time  of  Vul-nirari;  and  his  statement  that  he  took  tribute  from  the 
land  of  Omri  corresponds  precisely  with  the  Biblical  statement  that 
Menahem,  king  of  Israel,  paid  tribute  to  Pul. 

"It  has  been  conjectured  for  many  years  that  the  name  of  Vul- 
nirari  contains  the  elements  of  the  Biblical  Pul.  Pur  or  Pul  is  one  of 
the  well-known  values  of  the  first  element  in  the  name,  and  it  was  quite 
in  accordance  with  Assyrian  custom  to  shorten  similar  names  in  com- 
mon use;  thus,  the  king  Agukak-rimi  is  generally  called  Agu,  and 
Ragmu-sevi-ina-namari,  a  long  name  in  the  Izdular  legends,  is  often 
shortened  to  Ragmu.  So  the  name  Vul-nirari,  which  was  probably 
Pul-nirari,  was  quite  possibly  shortened  to  Pul. 

"  On  the  strength  of  the  inscription  in  which  he  states  that  he  sub- 
dued and  took  tribute  from  the  land  of  Omri,  or  Israel,  Sir  Henry 


THE    KINGS  169 

Rawlinson,  some  years  back,  identified  Vul-nirari  with  the  BibHcal 
Pul;  but  he  afterward  abandoned  this  view  when  he  discovered  the 
Eponym  Canon." 

§  87.  We  might  object  to  this  view,  that  it  requires  Menahem  to 
begin  in  B.  C.  773  or  before;  whereas  we  can  not,  without  violation  of 
the  Scripture  numbers,  make  h^^begin  before  B.  C.  770  (or  at  most 
771).  For  the  ist  year  of  Pekah,  beginning  "in  the  52d  year"  of 
Uzziah,  can  not  be  eariier  than  (the  "  16  years  "  of  Jotham  +  the  "16 
years  "  of  Ahaz  =)  32  years  added  to  Hezekiah's  accession  (B.  C.  726), 
that  is,  corresponding  with  B.  C.  758;  and  Menahem's  accession  "in 
the  39th  year"  of  Uzziah,  can  not  be  more  than  (52d-39th  =)  13  years 
earher,  viz.,  in  (758  -|-  13=)  771  B.  C,  instead  of  the  773  that  Smith 
claims  (by  stretching  Menahem's  "  10  years  "  to  12  years  from  B.  C. 
761  to  773). 

But  this  objection  may  be  overcome  thus:  The  years  770,  771  B.  C. 
are  (as  Smith  remarks)  anomalous  in  the  Canon.  For  they  have  as 
eponyms,  771  "the  king,"  770  "the  tartan,"  or  commander-in-chief, 
which  are  here  entirely  out  of  their  order,  with  no  other  prime  ministers 
following,  but  with  rulers  of  cities  proceeding  before  and  after  as  if 
not  interrupted  by  those  two  extraordinary  eponyms.  (See  Ep.  Can., 
p.  63,  25.)  Smith  tries  to  explain  this  by  saying  (p.  82):  "  It  is  con- 
jectured that  the  reason  for  this  omission  (of  so  many  officials  who 
ought  here  to  come  in  as  eponyms)  lies  in  the  fact  that  these  officers 
had  so  recently  held  the  office  of  eponym  during  the  last  reign  that 
their  names  were  passed  over."  But  this  is  unlikely,  because  just  aft- 
erward, at  the  accession  of  Tiglath-pileser,  where  the  succession  is 
just  as  recent,  no  such  omission  of  officials  occurs. 

§  88.  The  two  anomalous  eponyms  at  B.  C.  770,  771,  have  led  Rev. 
D.  H.  Haigh  to  assume  that  there  is  hei'e  a.£-ap  in  the  Canon  of  10  or 
15  years,  wherein  the  omitted  eponyms  belong.  This  Smith  rejects, 
yet  says:  "  But  it  must  be  allowed  that  in  this  place,  if  anywhere,  a 
gap  should  take  place,  as  there  is  a  break  here  in  the  titles  of 
eponyms."  We  suggest  not  a  gap  but  a  mere  excess  here  of  these  two 
years  not  really  belonging  in  the  Canon. 

It  will  be  noticed  as  a  curious  coincidence  that  these  two  eponyms 
are  not  found  on  any  except  one  of  the  seven  copies  of  the  Canon 
which  we  possess,  namely,  on  copy  I.  (See  Ep.  Can.,  p.  35,  46,  47.) 
Suppose  now  that  in  making  copy  I  (at  p.  35)  the  scribe  or  artist  at 
this  point  glanced  wrongly  at  the  years  752-3  of  the  copy  which  he  was 
following,  instead  of  the  right  place  (after  772)  which  he  had  reached, 
then,  d_y  viistake  he  would  winte  at  771,  "  Assur-nirari,  the  king,"  and  at 
770  "  Samsi-il,  the  tartan."  But  directly,  discovering  his  mistake,  he 
would  erase  these  two  lines,  as  seen  on  copy  V  (p.  46),  and  would  go  on 
with  the  right  names.  (As  at  769,  768,  etc.)  Then,  afterward,  some  one 
seeing  the  two  lines  vacant,   and  supposing  that  two  eponyms  were 


170  PERIOD    E 

there  accidentally  obliterated,  might  scrutinize  the  erasure  to  discover 

the  lost  names.      He  makes  out  the  partial  name,   "Assur king," 

and  the  next  line,   "  Samsi-il  tartan,"  but  is  at  a  loss  to  fill  out  the 

Assur king;  and  remembering  that  he  has  heard  of  a  king  "  As- 

sur-dana-pal  " — (see  directly,  §  89) — which  name  he  finds  nowhere  on 
the  list,  he  concludes  that  this  must  be  the  lost  name,  and  inserts  so 
much  of  it  as  the  space  between  "Assur"  and  "king"  allows,  so  that 
the  two  lines  now  read  "  Assur-daan  king"  and  "  Samsi-il  tartan." 
And  thus  we  have  copy  I,  with  these  two  erased  lines  (of  real  vacancy) 
wrongly  filled  up  with  names.  The  expeditions  named  in  copy  V 
might  be  further  conjecture,  made  because  all  the  years  in  this  copy 
had  expeditions  put  to  them. 

So  then,  if  years  770,  771  are  spurious  in  the  Canon,  then  the 
eponyms  and  expeditions  now  set  at  years  772,  773  belong  in  their  place, 
and  there  is  he7-e  no  change  of  kings;  but  Shalmaneser  continues  right 
along  till  B.  C.  755,  and  the  tribute  of  Menahem  to  Pul  as  the  still  liv- 
ing father  Vul-nirari,  might  be  during  the  "expedition  to  Damascus" 
771,  or  that  "  to  Hadrash  "  770,  or  even  later.  With  this  small  correc- 
tion which  we  suggest  in  the  Canon,  this  theory  concerning  Pul  as  Vul- 
nirari  may  be  maintained,  as  is  done  by  George  Smith,  and  Chambers' 
Cyc,  and  Smith's  Bible  Die. 

2.  Assur-daan. 

§89.  This  king's  name  looks  as  if  a  contraction  from  "  Assur- 
dana-pal,"  the  name  of  a  son  of  King  Shalmaneser  in  the  previous  cen- 
tury. "  It  is  related,  in  the  monolith  inscription  of  Samsi-vul  III  (be- 
ginning B.  C.  825),  that  during  the  reign  of  his  father,  Shalmaneser  II, 
another  son  of  that  king,  named  Assur-dain-pal,  revolted  against  him, 
and  was  followed  by  twenty-seven  districts  of  Assyria,  principally  in 
the  east  and  south.  These  districts  were  subdued,  and  again  brought 
under  the  rule  of  Shalmaneser  by  Samsi-vul,  who  afterward  succeeded 
to  the  throne  instead  of  the  rebel  prince."  (.Ep.  Can.,  p.  yj.)  So, 
"Assur-daan,"  as  a  son  of  the  next  Shalmaneser,  may  have  had  the 
same  name  "  Assur-dani-pal  "  as  in  the  earlier  case;  which  he  pei-haps 
tried  to  shorten  by  dropping  the  pa/,  to  distinguish  himself  from  that 
other  Assur-dani-pal  who  had  reigned  in  rebellion.  Having  a  double 
name,  he  would  naturally  reject  the  second  or  nick-name  Pal  or  Pulus, 
used  by  his  enemies  in  sarcastic  allusion  to  that  case  of  rebellion.  But 
that  very  name  Pal  or  Pul  would  be  the  one  which  would  reach  the 
Jews,  and  would  find  a  record  in  their  scriptures,  which  up  to  this  time 
had  no  mention  of  an  Assyrian  name.  In  this  view,  the  tribute  of 
Menahem,  if  not  as  early  as  the  "  expedition  to  Hadrach  "  in  772  B.  C, 
might  be  as  late  as  the  "expedition  to  Hadrach  "  in  765  B.  C,  or  else 
some  time  between. 


THE    KIN'GS  171 

J;  go.  This  theory  concerning  Pul  will  serve  to  clear  up  the  account 
of  Ctesias,  the  early  Greek  historian  (B.  C.  400);  whose  story  of  those 
times  has  always  perplexed  scholars,  while  giving  color  to  all  attempted 
histories  of  Assyria  until  the  present  generation  of  inscription  decipher- 
ment. He  depicts  the  effeminate  "  Sardanapalus  "  as  the  last  king, 
precipitating  by  his  folly  the  overthrow  of  Nineveh;  which  (he  says) 
fell  a  prey  to  the  united  onset  of  Arbaces  of  Media  and  Belesis  of 
Babylon.  But  he  gets  those  events  back  at  about  B.  C.  842,  /.  r.,  282 
years  before  the  conquest  of  Media  in  B.  C.  560.  Very  likely  he  heard 
of  the  rebel  "  Assur-dani-pal,"  son  of  Shalmaneser,  who  undertook  to 
reign  not  far  from  that  time,  as  seen  above;  and  calling  him  "  Sardan- 
apalus,"  applied  to  him  facts  which  really  belonged  to  the  later  "  As- 
sur-dana-[pal]  "  whom  we  have  hei'e  indicated,  as  beginning  to  reign 
in  B.  C.  773,  being  one  of  the  very  last  kings  of  the  earlier  empire. 

And  what  Assyrian  king  was  really  meant  by  "  Sardanapalus  ? " 
And  at  what  date  did  he  reign  ?  This  has  been  a  great  puzzle  to  his- 
torians. The  name  (in  that  form)  does  not  occur  on  the  monuments, 
or  in  the  Eponym  Canon.  But  it  would  seem  that  it  must  have  come 
from  the  royal  name  "  Assur-dani-pal; "'  for  the  "  Assur  "  readily  be- 
comes "Sar,"  the  consomxnts  being  the  same,  both  in  this  part  and 
throughout  the  name.  If,  as  we  here  suggest,  the  full  name  of  king 
"  Assur-daan  was  Assur-dana-pal,"  then,  as  being  the  real  "  Sardan- 
apalus,"  that  might  be  true  of  him  which  Ctesias  relates.  For,  it  would 
seem  from  the  Canon  that  this  king  might  be  effeminate,  not  accom- 
plishing much;  since,  instead  of  an  "  expedition"  every  ye  a)\  as  in  pre- 
vious and  later  reigns,  the  record  gives  no  expedition  in  9  of  his  18 
years,  but  mentions  a  stay  "in  the  country"  in  4  of  the  years,  and  a 
"revolt"  in  some  great  city  in  5  other  successive  years.  This  state 
of  the  case  on  his  part  and  of  dissatisfaction  on  the  people's  part, 
well  matches  the  account  given  of  Sardanapalus.  (See  Schwartz' 
Review,  p.  4.) 

§  gi.  The  next  king,  "  Assur-nirari,"  may  have  been  the  Median 
"Arbaces,"  who  is  described  by  Ctesias  as  conquering  Sardanapalus, 
and  reigning  in  his  stead.  And  as  to  the  Babylonian  "Belesis,"  who 
(he  says)  aided  Arbaces,  receiving  the  rule  of  Babylon  as  his  reward, 
it  is  indeed  generally  agreed  that  Belesis  was  that  "  Nabonassar,"  who 
in  B.  C.  747  got  possession  of  Babylon,  founding  the  Nabonassan  Era 
of  Ptolemy's  Canon  from  that  date  (February  26,  B.  C.  747).  Perhaps 
he  was  aided  by  Arbaces,  in  return  for  help  in  overcoming  Sardan- 
apalus 8  years  before  (in  B.  C.  755).  Thus  the  much  disputed  history 
of  Ctesias  may  be  set  to  rights. 

The  above  account  agrees  mostly  with  that  long  ago  given  by  such 
historians  as  Prideaux,  Rollin,  Anthon,  etc. — Anthon's  Classical 
Dictionary  (following  Ctesias)  says:  "Arbaces,  a  Median  officer,  con- 
spired with  Belesis,  the  most  distinguished  member  of  the  Chaldean 


172  PERIOD    E 

sacerdotal  college,  against  Sardanapalus,  King  of  Assyria.  After  sev- 
eral reverses,  he  finally  succeeded  in  his  object,  defeated  Sardanapalus 
near  Nineveh,  took  the  city,  and  reigned  in  it  28  years  [as  if  covering 
the  two  reigns  B.  C.  755-727].  With  him  commenced  a  dynasty  of 
eight  kings,  of  whom  Astyages  (about  B.  C.  600)  was  the  last." 
"Arbaces  promised  Belesis,  in  case  of  success,  the  government  of 
Babylon,  which  the  latter,  after  the  overthrow  of  Sardanapalus,  ac- 
cordingly obtained."  Says  Rollin  (Anc.  Hist.,  Vol.  II,  p.  60):  "Belesis 
is  the  same  as  Nabonassar;  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  he  is  called 
Baladin."  Arbaces,  governor  of  Media,  formed  a  conspiracy  against 
Sardanapalus.  Belesis,  governor  of  Babylon,  entered  into  it.  Nineveh 
was  taken,  Babylon  was  given  to  Belesis"  (p.  58-60).  "Several 
writers  believe  that  Arbaces  then  immediately  became  sovereign. 
Heroditus  is  not  of  this  opinion"  (p.  58).  "  Pul  is  supposed  to  be 
the  king  of  Nineveh  who  repented  with  all  his  people  at  the  preaching 
of  Jonah.  He  is  also  thought  to  be  the  father  of  Sardanapalus,  the 
last  king  of  the  Assyrians,  called,  according  to  the  custom  of  tlie  east- 
ern nations,  Sardan-pul;  that  is  to  say,  Sardan,  the  son  of  Pul"  (p. 
58).  This  last  idea  of  Rollin  agrees  with  view  i  above  combined  with 
2,  treating  Pul  as  Vul-nirari,  and  Sardanapalus  as  his  son  (or  grand- 
son) Assur-daan-[pal]. 

§  92.  Prideaux  (at  year  747)  says  that  on  the  fall  of  Sardanapalus, 
not  only  did  Arbaces  become  the  sovereign  in  his  stead  (suggested 
above  as  possibly  the  "  Assur-nirari  "  of  the  Canon),  but  that  Arbaces 
was  actually  Tiglath-pileser,  who,  as  a  i^esult  of  that  conspiracy  and 
overthrow  of  Sardanapalus,  left  Babylon  to  the  rule  of  his  confederate 
Belesis  or  Nabonassar-baladin,  and  himself  (as  Tiglath-pileser)  got 
possession  of  the  throne  at  Nineveh.  This  is  not  accepted  by  Rollin 
and  others  who  follow  Heroditus,  and  make  Tiglath-pileser  a  different 
usurper  distinct  from  Arbaces. 

Chambers'  Cyc.  says  of  ihefi/ia/  overthrow  of  Nineveh  (about  B.  C. 
609):  "It  is  uncertain  whether  Nineveh  was  destroyed  under  King 
Assher-emib-alli,  or  under  a  successor,  the  Saracus  of  Berosus,  the 
effeminate  Sardanapalus  of  the  Greeks."  And  the  Encyc.  Brittan. 
treats  "  Assur-bani-pal  "  (beginning  B.  C.  668  in  the  Canon)  as  being 
Sardanapalus,  the  last  king  of  Assyria.  This  late  placing  of  the  enig- 
matical "Sardanapalus"  of  Ctesias  and  the  Greeks,  or  the  supposi- 
tion of  a  second  monarch  of  the  same  name,  is  perhaps  a  doubtful 
theory.  May  not  all  conflicting  schemes  be  harmonized  upon  the  view 
of  Sardanapalus  we  have  here  given,  as  being  the  "  Assur-daan-[pal]" 
of  the  Canon  ? 

3.   TiGLATH-PlLESER. 

i$  93.  Those  who  think  the  name  "  Pul"  can  be  best  identified 
with  that  of  Tiglath-pileser,  may  adopt  that  view  without  impairment 
of  the  Scripture  history,  as  we  proceed  to  show.     It  is  agreed  that 


THE    KINGS  173 

Tiglath-pileser,  the  real  beginner  of  the  new  empire,  was  a  usurper. 
The  Encyc.  Brittan.  says:  "The  first  Assyrian  Empire  came  to  an 
end  in  B.  C.  744,  being  overthrown  by  the  usurper  Tiglath-pileser, 
after  a  struggle  of  three  or  four  years."  Now,  it  may  have  been  not 
alone  four  years  of  final  fighting,  but  many  years  of  struggle  begun  by 
open  usurpation,  that  preceded  Tiglath-pileser's  final  accession  to  the 
throne.  For,  the  Eponym  Canon  indicates  that  there  was  commotion 
in  Assyria  during  that  period,  for  18  years  before  Tiglath-pileser's  ac- 
cession in  B.  C.  745. 

Back  there  at  B.  C.  763,  the  Canon  reads,  "  revolt  in  the  city  of 
Assur;"  next  year,  762,  "revolt  in  the  city  of  Assur;"  next  year,  761, 
"  revolt  in  the  city  of  Arbaha;"  next  year,  760,  "  revolt  in  the  city  of 
Arbaha;"  next  year,  759,  "revolt  in  the  city  Gozan."  Five  successive 
yeai's  of  "revolt,"  in  place  of  each  year's  recorded  "expedition" 
usual  to  other  reigns.  And  then  at  B.  C.  746.  the  year  before  Tiglath- 
pileser's  accession,  there  is  a  similar  record,  "  revolt  in  the  city  of 
Calah,"  /.  e.,  in  the  old  capital  city,  not  far  south  of  Nineveh.  (Gen. 
x:  II.)  This  last  outbreak,  almost  under  the  walls  of  Nineveh,  was 
seemingly  the  crowning  onset  of  the  usurper,  whose  opening  onset  17 
years  before  had  been  by  "revolt  in  the  city  of  Assur,"  that  other 
capital,  60  miles  south  of  Nineveh  (toward  Babylon).  If  it  was  the 
war-like  Tiglath-pileser  thus  fomenting  trouble  through  the  land,  the 
starting-point  of  all  on  his  part  may  have  been  an  open  usurpation  of 
the  throne  about  772  or  3  B.  C;  after  which,  being  disowned  by  the 
government  (in  769),  his  embittered  passion  would  stir  up  the  subse- 
quent revolts,  raising  him  finally  to  the  fuMy-acknowledged  kingship 
over  the  whole  realm. 

§  94.  This  view  of  the  matter  will  furnish  a  new  explanation  of  the 
two  anomalous  eponyms  found  at  years  770,  771  of  the  Canon,  a  differ- 
ent explanation,  confirming  the  accuracy  of  the  Eponym  Canon. 
Suppose  then,  that  the  original  Tiglath-pileser,  then  known  only  by 
his  private  name  Pulus,  usurped  the  Assyrian  throne,  overwhelming 
the  officials,  and  compelling  them  (as  the  common  custom  for  a  new 
king)  to  put  him  as  eponym  of  B.  C.  771,  under  the  title  of  king  "  As- 
sur-daan  "  (the  other  part  of  his  double  name  "  Assur-dana-pal"  or 
pul.)  This  compulsory  honor  would  follow  to  "  the  tartan  "  in  B.  C. 
770.  But  by  that  time  the  indignant  officials  may  have  wrought  up 
the  people  to  effectual  resistance.  And  under  the  leadership  of  the 
preceding  king,  Shalmaneser  newly  acknowledged,  either  driving  out 
the  usurper  from  Nineveh,  or  themselves  removing  as  the  real  gov- 
ernment to  another  of  the  capital  cities,  Calah  or  Assur,  they  would 
refuse  longer  to  follow  his  bidding;  but,  being  in  possession  of  the 
Eponym  records,  they  would  again  go  on  with  the  old  order  of 
eponyms,  as  if  those  two  had  not  been  forcibly  interjected. 


174  PERIOD    E 

There  is  in  the  Canon  some  indication  of  a  removal  of  the  govern- 
ment for  a  time  from  Nineveh.  If  in  B.  C.  769,  when  the  usurper  was 
disowned,  the  loyal  government  (under  Shalmaneser  still)  set  up  its 
authority  at  the  old  capital  Assur,  leaving  the  intruder  possessing  Nin- 
eveh for  awhile;  then  we  see  why  that  usurper  stirred  up  so  continued 
a  "revolt"  year  after  year  in  that  very  "  city  of  Assur"  (B.  C.  763, 
762),  followed  by  revolts  in  other  cities,  Arbaha  and  Gozan  (B.  C.  761, 
760,  759).  And  when  in  B.  C.  759,  at  the  accession  of  a  new  king, 
"  Assur-nirari,"  we  read  in  the  Canon,  "from  the  city  of  Assur  the 
return,"  we  seem  to  see  the  new  king  with  young  valor  driving  out  the 
intruder  from  Nineveh  and  making  " the  return  from  Assur"  of  him- 
self and  his  government.  Of  course,  the  expelled  usurper  would  still 
try  to  keep  up  a  local  sway,  inciting  revolts;  until  by  revolt  fomented 
at  Calah,  in  the  very  face  of  the  authorities,  he  got  full  possession  of 
the  throne. 

§  95.  And  now,  in  order  that  there  should  be  no  ousting  of  him 
again,  as  not  the  real  king,  the  conquerer  introduced  a  new  feature  in 
the  record — and  had  the  fact  of  his  real  accession  recorded  on  the 
Eponym  Canon  of  thatyear(B.  C.  745);  which  reads:  Eponym  "  Nabu- 
bel-uzur  [governor  of]  Arbaha,  in  the  month  of  lyyar,  13th  day,  Tugulti- 
pal-esar  the  throne  ascended."  Such  a  record  of  the  fact  and  date  of 
a  king's  accession  had  never  before  been  known  in  any  copy  of  the  Ep- 
onym Canon;  and  George  Smith  (page  206)  says  of  it:  "It  should  be 
noted  that  no  accession  is  ever  marked  in  the  Assyrian  Eponym  Canon 
before  that  of  Tiglath-pileser  II,  B.  C.  745.  It  would  appear  that 
great  precision  was  then  introduced  into  the  Assyrian  records;  and  it  is 
curious  that  the  date  of  this  change,  B.  C.  745,  nearly  synchronizes 
with  the  date  of  the  commencement' of  Ptolemy's  Canon  at  Babjdon, 
B.  C.  747,  so  that  it  is  probable  that  some  change  in  this  respect  took 
place  at. both  capitals,  at  nearly  the  same  time." 

Anthon's  Classical  Die.  tells  us,  from  Polyhistor  and  Berosus, 
through  Syncelllis:  "  Nabonassar  having  collected  the  acts  of  his  pred- 
ecessors, destroyed  them,  in  order  that  the  computations  of  the  reigns 
of  the  Chaldean  kings  (in  Babylon)  might  be  made  from  himself."  As 
thus  the  usurping  king  at  Babylon  wanted  to  fix  definitely  the  fact  and 
date  of  his  accession,  so  his  companion  usurper  at  Nineveh  wanted  to 
establish  his  right  to  the  throne  (before  set  aside)  by  an  exact  official 
record. 

§  96.  The  newly  instated  monarch  of  Assyria  had  already  the 
name  Pil-esar  or  Pulassur  (the  Die.  of  Relig.  Knowl.  gives  it  as  Pal- 
esarra);  which  seems  to  be  only  the  last  and  first  of  his  original  name 
inverted — a  very  common  custom  concerning  names  in  those  times. 
Thus  Assur- [dana] -pal  would  readily  become  Pal-assuror  Pileser.  But 
upon  his  new  enthronement,  he  naturally  prefixed  a  new  cognomen, 
"Tiglath"  or   "Tukulti,"as  successor  of  an  early  Assyrian  king  of 


THE    KINGS  175 

that  name.  With  this  view  of  Tiglath-pileseras  an  old  usurper  "Assur- 
daan-[pal],"  z.  e.,  Pal-assur  or  Pileser  restored— we  have  the  Eponym 
Canon  left  with  Shalmaneser,  whose  reign  began  in  B.  C.  783,  still 
reigning  at  771,  770,  until  B.  C.  755,  when  his  successor  Assur-nirari 
might  be  the  "  Sardanapalus  "  of  Ctesias,  overthrown  by  the  usurpers 
Arbaces  (as  Baladin  or  Nabonassar)  with  Belesis  (as  Pal-assur  or  Pil- 
eser) at  the  re-enthronement  called  Tiglath-pileser. 

(Note. — The  greatest  objection  to  regarding  Pul  and  Tiglath-pileser 
as  the  same,  is,  that  the  Scriptures  seem  so  plainly  to  regard  them  as 
two  distinct  persons;  as  in  II  Ki.  xv:  19,  29,  I  Chron.  v:  26.  For,  the 
"he  "  in  the  latter  verse  evidently  means  he  the  last  ;/rtW^<^/ (Tiglath- 
pileser),  since  Pul  produced  no  such  captivity  ^.■s,  described.) 

§97.  If  Tiglath-pileser  was  originally  the  very  "  Pul"  of  Scripture, 
then  his  mention  (on  his  inscriptions)  of  "  Menahem  of  Samaria"  and 
"  Azariah  of  Judah  "  is  a  very  natural  matter.  For  these  two  inscrip- 
tions, like  the  rest  in  his  reign,  are  not  dated;  so  that,  as  George  Smith 
observes  (page  116):  "The  annals  of  Tiglath-pileser  are  very  muti- 
lated; and  the  fragments  referring  to  Palestine  are  so  detached,  that 
it  is  difficult  to  determine  their  dates.  The  dates  given  here  are  only 
approximate  calculations,  and  future  discoveries  may  alter  them 
considerably."  In  these  inscriptions  (conceded  to  be  among  his  ear- 
liest) he  no  doubt  gives  a  combined  reminiscence  of  all  he  had  ac- 
complished hitherto,  without  being  particular  to  distinguish  dates. 
This  appears  particularly  from  the  aspect  of  that  inscription  which 
contains  mention  of  Miiinichim»ii  or  Menahem.  A  great  many  diverse 
localities  are  mentioned  as  conquered,  and  then  follows  a  list  of  ti'ibutes 
received, — "  The  tribute  of  Kutaspi  of  Kummaha,  Rezin  of  Sj-ria,  Mena- 
hem of  Samaria,  Hirom  of  Tyre,"  and  fourteen  more  named. 

§  98.  These  four  that  head  the  list  seem  to  be  peculiar  cases  of 
continuous  standing;  for  in  another  early  inscription,  a  similar  list 
starts  with  three  of  them,  and  the  first  one  heads  another  hke  list  on  an 
inscription  several  years  later.  Indeed,  all  the  names  deciphered  on 
the  earliest  inscription  are  contained  in  the  list  on  the  subsequent  in- 
scription; and  most  of  these  are  contained  in  the  list  many  years  later 
(viz:  14  out  of  18  names.)  This  evident  stereotyped  character  of  these 
lists  suggests  the  remarks  of  Geo.  Smith  (p.  179):  "  I  am  able  to  bring 
some  evidence  to  show  that  these  tribute  lists  were  sometimes  care- 
lessly compiled,  and  in  error  as  to  names."  (He  mentions  several  cases 
of  error,  and  says):  "  There  is  another  instance  in  the  tribute-list  in 
the  first  expedition  of  Assur-banipal,  which  so  far  as  it  is  preserved, 
contains  the  same  names  as  that  of  Esarhaddon,  about  13  years  be- 
fore, being  most  probably  a  literal  copy  of  the  earlier  document,  with- 
out any  attempt  to  ascertain  if  these  kings  were  still  reigning,  and  if 
they  really  paid  tribute.  *  *  *  These  evidences  of  eiTor  in  the 
tribute  lists  are  accompanied  by   similar  false  statements  as  to  foreign 


176  PERIOD    E 

proper  names  in  the  annals  of  some  of  their  kings,  and  should  serve 
as  a  caution  against  attaching  too  much  importance  to  a  difference  in  a 
proper  name  between  the  Bible  and  the  inscriptions." 

Tiglath-pileser  would  not  like  to  direct  attention  to  the  date  of  his 
first  usurpation,  when  he  was  soon  repulsed;  so  he  mentions  his 
achievements  of  those  days  in  a  general  way  in  summing  up  his  past 
exploits. 

"The  submission  of  Menahem,  etc.,  appear  in  the  annals  of  Tig- 
lath-pileser in  a  paragraph  that  immediately  precedes  an  event  in  the 
gth  year.  *  *  *  The  events  preceding  the  gth  year  of  Tiglath- 
pileser  might  be  merely  a  summary  or  recapitulation,  and  they  might 
have  happened  in  any  of  the  years"  of  Tiglath  preceding.  [Schwartz' 
Letter,  0ct.-2g,  T888,p.  20.) 

%  gg.  According  to  this  view,  Tiglath-pileser  had  dealings  with 
Menahem  and  Azariah  in  those  days  (B.  C.  Tji-'jbq)  when  he  was  actu- 
ally on  the  throne  for  a  while,  and  was  known  in  approaching  Pales- 
tine as  "  Pul,  King  of  Assyria."  (The  expeditions  set  down  at  those 
years  may  not  have  been  his,  but  those  of  the  then  overshadowed 
Shalmaneser.)  Indeed,  the  Hebrew  word  "Pul"  or  "  Phul "  means 
his  highness,  or  7-oyalty.  Says  Gesenius:  "The  name  signifies  either 
elephant,  ox  lord,  king,  like  the  Sanscrit,  ^rt/rt",  lofty,  highest."  (Com- 
pare the  ptil  in  names  of  Assyrian  kings.)  The  derivation  is  from 
Heb.  ptclay,  wonderful,  mighty.  So  that  the  Jews,  as  yet  unfamiliar 
with  Assyrian  names,  would  readily  call  this  first  king  with  whom  they 
had  to  do,  simply  "  Pul,"  his  highness,  the  mighty  one. 

Indeed,  so  many  of  the  Assyrian  kings  had  pal  at  the  end  of  their 
name,  or  vul  [i.  e.,  phul)  at  the  beginning  or  end,  as  seen  in  the  Canon, 
(viz:  Assur-nazir-pal,  Assur-dani-pal,  Samsi-vul,  Vul-nirari,  covering 
over  half ,  perhaps  five-sixths  of  the  115  years  previous  to  Menahem), 
that  the  simple  Hebrews  might  think  that  "  Pul"  or  Phul  was  a  gen- 
eral term  for  an  Assyrian  king,  like  "Pharaoh"  in  Egypt.  So  that, 
whoever  that  particular  king  may  be,  whether  either  or  neither  of  the 
three  we  have  here  proposed,  the  Scripture  name  Pul  is  amply  ac- 
counted for,  without  any  mutilation  of  the  Scripture  history  or  chro- 
nology. The  original  tribute  paid  to  Pul  was  about  770  B.  C,  where 
the  Bible  puts  it;  while  a  mention  of  it,  and  a  repetition  of  it,  as  "the 
tribute  of  Menahem,"  is  given  many  years  afterward  by  Tiglath- 
pileser. 

CHAPTER  II.— "This  is  that  King  Ahaz." 

//  Chron.  x.vviii:  32. 

^  loo.  When  we  have  settled  the  question,  "Who  was  Pul?" 
without  viewing  him  as  Tiglath-pileser — (for  Geoi^ge  Smith  and  others 
prefer  the  first  view  above,  making  him  Vul-nirari — and  we  ourselves 
incline  to  the  second  view,  making  him  "  Assur-dana-[pal],"  ) — then 


THE    KINGS  177 

the  new  question  arises,  How  could  Tiglath-pileser  on  his  monuments 
speak  of  dealing  with  "Azariah  of  Judah,"  as  well  as  "  Menahem  of 
Samaria, "  who  both  died  many  years  before  Tiglath-pileser's  acces- 
sion in  B.  C.  745;  the  former  in  B.  C.  757,  and  the  latter  in  B.  C.  760, 
by  the  Scripture  dating  ?  A  careful  study  of  the  history  will  make  the 
matter  plain. 

g  loi.  It  seems  that  Jotham,  the  pious  father  of  Ahaz,  gave  him 
the  name  "Jeho-ahaz,"  meaning  w/ioiii  Jf/ioi'a/i  possesses.  And  Tig- 
lath-pileser, king  of  Assyria,  calls  him  by  that  full  name,  in  an  inscrip- 
tion belonging  about  732  B.  C.  Giving  a  list  of  tributaries,  he  men- 
tions "The  tribute  of  Kustaspi  of  Kummaha,  *  *  *  Metinto  of 
Askelon,  Jeho-ahaz  of  Judah,  Chemosh-melek  of  Eden,"  etc. — 22 
countries  in  all.  But  this  king  of  Judah  was  so  wicked  and  idolatrous, 
more  so  than  any  of  his  predecessors  or  successors,  that  the  Jews 
themselves  disliked  to  attach  the  epithet  "Jeho  "  (or  Jehovah)  to  his 
name,  and  so  for  short  they  called  him  simply  by  the  other  part  of  his 
name  "  Ahaz."     And  they  derisively  said,    "  This  is  that  king  Ahaz  !  " 

It  was  common,  then  as  now,  to  abbreviate  proper  names  in  this 
way;  and  the  difference  in .  designation  of  the  Bible  records  and  the 
foreign  record  occasions  no  difficulty  among  scholars.  All  are  agreed 
that  the  Jeho-ahaz  of  the  Assyrian  inscription  is  the  same  as  the  Ahaz 
of  Scripture,  who  did  just  about  that  time  pay  tribute  to  Tiglath- 
pileser,  as  described  here  in  II  Chron.  xxviii:  20-25.  This  variation  of 
a  name  at  the  outset  should  prepare  us  not  to  be  surprised,  if  we  find 
other  variations  as  we  proceed.  Thus,  also,  these  late-discovered  in- 
scriptions from  the  excavated  Assyrian  ruins,  furnish  a  wonderful  con- 
firmation of  Scripture,  in  this  and  many  other  respects. 

§  102.  But  the  name  Jeho-ahaz  itself  was  among  the  Hebrews  con- 
vertible into  Ahaz-iah  (or  Ahaz-jah),  meaning  him  who  possesses 
Jehovah;  for  this  is  in  fact  the  same  name  as  the  other,  only  with 
the  two  parts  inverted.  Therefore,  we  find  the  same  king  called  in 
close  connection  both  Jehoahaz  and  Ahaziah,  as  in  II  Chron.  xxi:  17 
and  xxii:  i.  This  inversion  of  names  was  common  in  those  days. 
Moreover,  this  latter  form  of  the  name,  Ahaziah,  was  so  similar  in 
sound  and  aspect  to  Azariah,  which  was  more  easily  pronounced,  that 
the  two  names  were  sometimes  used  interchangeably;  as  we  find  in  the 
very  case  just  referred  to;  II  Chron.  xxi:  17,  and  xxii:  i,  with  ver.  6. 
Here  is  the  remarkable  circumstance,  that  within  10  verses  the  same 
man  is  called,  first  "Jeho-ahaz,"  secondly  "Ahaziah,"  and  thirdly 
"  Azariah."  It  is  perfectly  plain,  then,  that  these  three  forms  of  the 
name  were  interchangeable;  and  "Ahaz,"  who  was  primarily  "Jeho- 
ahaz,"  might  also  be  called  "Ahaz-iah,"  and  likewise  "Azariah." 
Accordingly,  we  find  Tiglath-pileser,  on  two  inscriptions  some  years 
earlier  than  the  one  above  mentioned,  calling  Ahaz  by  this  name 
"  Azariah." 


178  PERIOD    E 

It  would  seem  that  at  first  Tiglath-pileser  became  most  familiar 
with  this  form  of  the  name  as  "  Azariah."  And  why  ?  We  may  learn 
why,  by  reading  the  story  as  given  in  II  Ki.  xvi:  2-9.  "  Twenty  years 
old  was  Ahaz  when  he  began  to  reign,  and  he  reigned  sixteen  years  in 
Jerusalem,  and  did  not  that  which  was  right  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord 
his  God,  like  David  his  father.  But  he  walked  in  the  way  of  the  kings 
of  Israel,  yea,  and  made  his  son  to  pass  through  the  fire,  according  to 
the  abominations  of  the  heathen,  whom  the  Lord  cast  out  from  before 
the  children  of  Israel.  And  he  sacrificed  and  burnt  incense  in  the 
high  places,  and  on  the  hills,  and  under  every  green  tree.  Then 
Rezin,  king  of  Syria,  and  Pekah,  son  of  Remaliah,  king  of  Israel,  came 
up  to  Jerusalem  to  \^ar;  and  they  beseiged  Ahaz,  but  could  not  over- 
come him. 

"  So  Ahaz  sent  messengers  to  Tiglath-pileser,  king  of  Assyria,  say- 
ing, I  am  thy  servant  and  thy  son;  come  up,  and  save  me  out  of  the 
hand  of  the  king  of  Syria,  and  out  of  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Israel, 
which  rise  up  against  me.  And  Ahaz  took  the  silver  and  gold  that  was 
found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  treasures  of  the  king's  house, 
and  sent  it  for  a  present  to  the  king  of  Assyria.  And  the  king  of  As- 
syria barkened  unto  him;  for  the  king  of  Assyria  went  up  against  Da- 
mascus, and  took  it,  and  carried  the  people  of  it  captive  to  Kir,  and 
slew  Rezin." 

§  103.  Notice  now  the  perfectly  abject  posture  of  Ahaz,  when  thus 
early  in  his  reign  (lasting  from  B.  C.  741-726),  viz.,  in  740-738  B.  C. 
(before  his  4th  year=  Jotham's  "  20th  year,"  II  Ki.  xv:  30),  he  bowed 
and  truckled  before  the  king  of  Assyria,  begging  him  in  piteous  tones 
to  come  to  his  help  against  his  enemies.  ' '  I  am  thy  servmit,  and  thy 
son,''  he  said,  "  come  up,  and  save  me  out  of  the  hand  "  of  Rezin  and 
Pekah.  Such  was  the  letter  which  the  "messengers "  bore  to  Tiglath- 
pileser.  No  doubt,  this  fawning  sycophant  filled  in  that  letter  with 
adulation  and  self-flatteries,  about  his  own  pious  ancestors  and  As- 
syria's great  exploits  in  their  day;  telling  how  long  his  good  grand- 
father "  Azariah  "  had  reigned  in  peaceable  relations  with  the  kings  of 
Assyria,  while  Menahem  of  Samaria  "had  felt  compelled  to  become 
voluntarily  their  tributary,  "Come  up,"  he  cried,  "and  help  me  too, 
the  son  of  such  friendly  ancestors,  in  my  war  with  Samaria,  and  you 
too  may  gather  in  and  perpetuate  '  the  tribute  of  Menahem  of  Samaria. ' ' ' 
He  no  doubt  signed  his  name  in  full,  "Jeho-ahaz,"  or  "Ahaz-iah," 
laying  full  claim  to  the  ancestral  piety,  and  scorning  the  mere  nick- 
name "  Ahaz,"  which  the  Jews  in  his  impiety  had  learned  to  give  him. 
"  This  was  that  king  Ahaz  !" 

§  104.  Tiglath-pileser  thus  cajoled  came  with  his  armies,  and  con- 
quered Pekah  and  Rezin  for  Ahaz,  as  he  describes  in  his  inscriptions 
of  those  very  years  (B.  C.  740-738),  But  of  course,  he  does  not  speak 
of  his  confederate  as  "Ahaz,"  but  in  full  as  he  had  signed  himself 


THE    KINGS  179 

"Ahaziah."  Or  rather,  he  mixes  up  the  names  of  the  grandson  and 
grandfather,  whose  fame  had  been  portrayed  to  him,  and  (like  the 
Jews  themselves)  he  uses  the  more  pronounceable  form  "Azariah,"  as 
the  designation,  on  the  monuments,  of  his  Judean  confederate.  The 
pronunciation  Azar-iah  came  more  natural  to  an  Assyrian,  because 
they  had  so  many  names  beginning  with  similar  sound,  "  Assur — ." 

In  the  discovered  fragments  of  his  monument  he  writes:  "*  *  * 
course  of  my  expedition  the  tribute  of  the  kings  *  *  *  Azariah  of 
Judah  like  a  *  *  *  Azariah  of  Judah  in  *  *  *  without  number 
to  high  heaven  were  raised  *  *  *  their  cities  without  number  I 
pulled  down,  destroyed  *  *  *  to  Azariah  turned  and  strengthened 
him,  and  *  *  *."  Again  he  says:  "*  *  *  Judah  *  *  *  of 
Azariah  my  hand  greatly  captured  *  *  *  right  *  *  *  tribute 
like  that  of  *  *  *  to  his  assistance  the  city  of  Ma  *  *  *  cities 
helping  them  *  *  *  ig  districts  of  Hamath,  and  the  cities  which 
are  round  them,  which  are  beside  the  sea  of  the  setting  sun  in  sin  and 
defiance  to  Azariah  had  turned,  to  the  boundaries  of  Assyria  I  added, 
and  my  generals  governors  over  them  I  appointed  *  *  *  The  trib- 
ute of  Kustaspi  of  Kummaha,  Rezin  of  Syria,  Menahem  of  Samaria, 
Hirom  of  Tyre  [and  14  others],  gold,  silver,  lead,  iron,  skins,"  etc. 

§  105.  We,  in  common  with  the  great  Assyriologist,  Geo.  Smith, 
and  others,  regard  the  Azariah  here  as  meaning  Ahaz-iah  or  Ahaz  of 
Judah.  Observe  how  well  the  coloring  and  aspect  of  the  inscription 
fit  the  relation  of  Tiglath-pileser  to  Ahaz,  as  seen  in  the  Bible  story. 
He  does  not  number  him  among  his  enemies  or  those  made  tributary; 
but  he  speaks  of  him  more  as  if  a  confederate.  As  Geo.  Smith  remarks 
{p.  180),  the  meaning  "is  not  quite  certain,  owing  to  the  mutilation  of 
the  fragments."  But  the  language  seems  as  if  meaning  to  say:  "*  *  * 
their  cities  I  pulled  down  [and  then]  to  Azariah  turned  and  strength- 
ened him  *  *  *  ig  districts  of  Hamath  *  *  *  in  sin  and  defiance 
to  [against]  Azariah  turned,  to  the  boundaries  of  Assyria  I  added 
[them]."  Certainly,  the  distant  northern  regions  of  "  Hamath  "  were 
not  fighting  for  Judah,  but  more  likely  were  confederate  with  their 
nearer  inten'ening  neighbors  Samaria  and  Damascus  cii^ainst  Judah. 
And  so,  Ahaz  as  at  first  in  the  distance  an  obsequious  confederate  of 
Tiglath-pileser,  was  loosely  termed  "Azariah;"  but  several  years 
afterward,  when  Tiglath-pileser  had  proved  false,  and  had  come  and 
exacted  tribute  (instead  of  being  content  with  gifts),  and  "  king  Ahaz 
tucnt  to  Damascus  to  ineet  Tiglath-pileser  king  of  Assyria,"  and  to  con- 
fer with  him  in  person  (see  H  Ki.  xvi:  10,  17,  18,  with  H  Chron.  xxviii: 
19-21),  then  better  acquaintance  led  to  the  record  on  the  tribute  list  more 
exactly,  as  the  tribute  of  "  Jeho-ahaz  of  Judah." 

j;  106.  As  to  the  mention  made  of  the  tribute  of  "  Menahem  of  Sa- 
maria," we  have  already  shown  (tj  98)  how  little  these  tribute  lists  can 
be  depended  upon  as  recording  only  what  took  place  at  the  time  of 


180  PERIOD    E 

writing,  since  they  evidently  sum  up  loosely  the  tributes  of  the  past, 
including  some  of  an  established  and  permanent  sort,  kept  in  mention 
to  swell  the  boastful  claims.  We  have  also  suggested  how  Ahaz  at 
this  time  had  probably  roninded  Tiglath-pileser  of  Menahem  of  Sa- 
maria, and  of  his  celebrated  tribute  offeiing,  which  might  be  now  re- 
enforced.  So  that  it  was  not  wonderful  that  when  Tiglath-pileser 
had  taken  the  hint,  and  had  now  in  truth  subdued  Samaria  and  exacted 
tribute,  he  should  set  it  down  in  the  list  as  "the  tribute  of  Menahem 
of  Samaria"  renewed.  Perhaps  his  expression  in  the  inscription, 
'i-jf  *  *  right  *  *  -»  like  the  tribute  of  *  *  *  "  means 
"  Azariah  (or  Ahaz)  first  acknowledged  my  right  by  a  free-will  offering 
hke  the  tribute  of  Menahem."  For  certainly  we  know  that  that  par- 
ticular offering  of  money  by  Menahem  became  a  famous  incident  to 
the  Assyrians,  long  cited  as  a  current  phrase  io  express  the /cr/z/rXy 
purchase  of  peace. 

Notice  how  apt  was  that  instance  as  an  illustration  of  extravagant 
surrender.  Menahem  had  just  seized  the  throne  of  Israel  with  cruel 
butchery  and  savagery  that  made  him  very  unpopular.  {II  Ki.  xv:  i6, 
19,  20.)  "And  Pul,  the  king  of  Assyria,  came  against  the  land:  And 
Menahem  gave  Pul  a  thousand  talents  of  silver  that  his  hand  might  be 
with  him  to  confirm  the  kingdom  in  his  hand.  And  Menahem  exacted 
the  money  of  Israel,  even  of  all  the  mighty  men  of  wealth,  of  each 
man  fifty  shekels  of  silver,  to  give  to  the  king  of  Assyria.  So  the 
king  of  Assyria  turned  back,  and  stayed  not  there  in  the  land."  How 
eager  Menahem  was  to  give  away  other  people's  money,  extorting  it 
from  them  to  purchase  an  undeserved  peace  for  himself!  His 
very  name,  "Menahem,"  signifies  their  gift  (from  Heb.  Minehah 
gift;  so  hadorah,  ornament,  hence  the  proper  name  Hadoram,  their  or- 
nament). And  perhaps  he  got  the  name  fastened  on  him  by  the  people 
as  a  reminder  of  the  "  1,000  talents,"  their  gift,  extorted  to  purchase 
his  peace  ! 

ii  107.  That  we  have  rightly  represented  this  as  a  current  phrase 
long  afterward  used  in  Assyria,  appears  from  the  fact  that  not  only 
does  Tiglath-pileser  mention  "Menahem  of  Samaria"  in  his  tribute 
list  thirty  years  after  the  original  event,  but  also  Sennacherib,  over 
thirty  years  later  still,  has  the  same  "  Menahem  of  Samaria"  at  the 
head  of  his  list  of  tributes  taken  (Ep.  Can.,  p.  132);  as  if  to  charac- 
terize all  those  tributes  as  (like  his)  free  gifts  to  purchase  peace.  We 
are  astonished  that  among  all  those  whom  we  have  found  discussing 
this  subject  no  one  has  ever  mentioned  this  fact,  that  Sennacherib 
uses  the  phrase  as  well  as  Tiglath-pileser.  If  we  must  conclude  (as 
many  argue)  from  the  mention  of  "  Menahem,"  that  he  was  living  in 
the  time  of  Tiglath-pileser,  by  the  same  logic  we  must  conclude  that 
he  was  living  still  later  in  the  time  of  Sennacherib.  Or,  if  some  new 
and  unheard-of  ruler  of  the  same  name  "Menahem,"  had  arisen  in 


THE    KINGS  181, 

Samaria  in  the  time  of  Sennacherib,  then,  perhaps  (as  Prof.  Oppert 
sets  forth,  Ep.  Can.,  p.  182),  some  unheard-of  pretender  of  the  same 
name  had  obtained  power  and  paid  tribute  in  Samaria  in  the  time  of 
Tiglath-pileser  during  that  9  years  interregnum  after  the  death  of 
Pekah,  whil,e  Hoshea  was  strugghng  for  the  throne  (B.  C.  738-729. 
See  II  Ki.  xv:  30,  and  xvii,  i.) 

§  108.  Rather,  we  say,  whenever  tribute  was  taken  from  Samaria, 
it  was  called  "the  tribute  of  Menahem  of  Samaria,"  as  being  a  repe- 
tition of  that.  This  George  Smith  shows  by  other  examples  taken 
from  the  inscriptions  (page  195):  "  We  can  see  how  a  name  Hke  Men- 
ahem might  be  continued  in  the  list  of  Assyrian  tributaries,  and  his 
country  be  accounted  as  subject  to  Assyria,  long  after  Menahem  and 
Pul  were  dead;  the  new  king  of  Assyria  ignoring  the  march  of  events, 
and  not  admitting  that  the  tributary  was  dead,  and  the  subject  country 
in  revolt."  He  adds  the  caution  which  we  have  cited  in  §  98.  So 
then,  we  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  phrase  "  tribute  of  Mena- 
hem," occurring  in  Tiglath-pileser's  inscription,  is  only  a  stereotyped 
expression,  especially  as  connected  with  Samaria;  and  that  "  Azariah  " 
is  simply  the  diplomatic  form  for  "  Ahaziah,"  equivalent  to  "Jeho- 
ahaz."     "  This  was  that  king  Ahaz." 

The  concurrence  of  these  names  on  the  monument,  seemingly  out 
of  place,  is  a  singular  incident;  but  it  need  not  destroy  our  faith  in  the 
accuracy  of  Scripture;  especially  when  w-e  find  the  Bible  Chronology, 
so  indubitably  demonstrated  as  it  is  by  its  own  inherent  combinations 
and  corroborations,  as  well  as  by  the  chronology  of  Josephus.  We  can 
still  honestly  believe  that  the  original  tribute  paid  to  Pul  was  about 
B.  C.  770,  where  the  Bible  puts  it;  while  a  mention  of  it  and  a  repeti- 
tion of  it,  as  "  the  tribute  of  Menahem,"  is  given  thirty  years  later  in 
B.  C.  738-740  by  Tiglath-pileser,  and  again  sixty  years  later  by  Sen- 
necherib. 

);  109.  There  is  another  point  that  requires  notice  here.  The  gap 
or  interregnum  of  nine  years  in  Israel  (from  B.  C.  738  to  729,  which 
Scripture  leaves  unfilled  after  Pekah,  George  Smith  proposes  to  fill  up, 
by  calling  Pekah's  "20  years"  (II  Ki.  xv:27),  a  corruption  for  "30 
years."  But  the  objection  to  this  is,  that  this  makes  out  not  one  but 
fwo  impossible  corruptions.  For,  the  "20th  year  of  Jotham  "  (in  ver. 
30)  must  also,  in  that  case,  be  a  corruption  for  "30th  year  of  Jotham." 
But  this  last  is  unsupposable;  for,  the  "  20th  year  of  Jotham,"  means 
simply  the   "20th  year  after  Azariah;"  *  and  if  it  intended  to  say 

*  The  writer  had  (at  ver.  5)  named  "Jotham,"  the  successor  of 
Azariah;  but  he  had  not  yet  come  to  any  mention  of  such  a  king  as 
"Ahaz"  to  follow.  Therefore,  he  expresses  his  date  here  as  the 
"  20th  year  of  Jotham,"  which  was  equivalent  to  //le  4th  year  of  Ahaz, 
after  Jotham's  death. 


182  PERIOD    E 

"30th  year,"  this  event  would  not  be  recorded  here  (so  long  before  its 
occurrence),  but  at  Ch.  xvii:  i,  where  that  point  of  time  is  taken  up. 
The  very  language  at  this  last-named  place  shows,  that  Hoshea's 
attempt  to  reign  had  up  to  this  point  been  a  failure.  "In  the  12th 
year  of  Ahaz,  king  of  Judah,  began  Hoshea,  the  son  of  Elah,  to  reign  in 
Samaria  over  Israel  nine  years."  It  is  not  said  that  then  he  began 
reigning,  but  then  he  began  to  reign  in  Samaria  nine  years;  showing 
that  his  previous  rule  was  only  as  an  unacknowledged  usurper  outside 
the  capital.  Notice,  that  all  previous  reigns  are  expressed  differently, 
as  actually  begun  in  Samaria. 

^  no.  Tiglath-pileser  in  one  of  his  inscriptions  speaks  of  going  to 
"the  boundary  of  the  land  of  Beth  Omri "  [Samaria],  and  says: 
"  Pekah,  their  king  *  *  *  and  Hoshea  to  the  kingdom  over  them  I 
appointed  *  *  *  their  tribute  I  received  and  *  *  *  to  Assyria 
I  sent."  Some  Assyriologists  date  this  inscription  as  in  B.  C.  732- 
730,  and  claim  that  tlicn  Tiglath-pileser  must  have  himself  slain 
Pekah,  (though  that  word  slain  is  wanting  in  the  fragment);  so  that 
(they  argue)  the  Scripture  account  of  Pekah  as  slain  by  Hoshea  in  B. 
C.  738  must  be  wrong.  But  a  good  Assyriologist  (Geo.  Smith)  calls 
this  inscription  a  "General  Summary"  of  events  "from  740  to  730," 
telling  us  that  all  these  inscriptions  of  Tiglath-pileser  are  very  doubt- 
ful as  to  their  date.  This  one  is  as  likely  to  belong  to  B.  C.  738  as 
anywhere  else.  It  contains  mention  of  four  places  as  captured  (Had- 
i-ach,  Saua,  Uznu  Sihanu),  whose  capture  is  described  in  the  inscrip- 
tion conceded  as  belonging  in  B.   C.  738. 

Indeed  this  inscription  concerning  Pekah  and  Hoshea,  relates  the 
capture  of  the  very  city  "  Abel  [beth  Maacha]  which  is  the  boundary 
of  the  land  of  Beth  Omri "  [Samaria] — the  account  of  which  is  given 
in  II  Ki.  xv:  29,  showing  that  this  expedition,  wherein  Pekah  and  Ho- 
shea are  named,  is  the  very  occasion  here  described  by  Scripture  as 
connected  with  the  change  from  Pekah  to  Hoshea  (in  B.  C.  738). 
This  is  very  confirmatory  of  the  Bible  truthfulness.  Whenever  the 
inscription  was  made,  it  was  a  mere  recounting  of  what  took  place 
with  Pekah  in  B.  C.  738,  (Tiglath-pileser's  instigation  to  his  death  by 
the  hand  of  Hoshea).  And  when  he  says,  "  Hoshea  I  appointed  owev 
them,"  he  does  not  tell  us  how  long  it  took  the  "appointed  "  Hoshea 
to  get  possession  of  the  capital  Samaria,  as  the  de  facto  king. 


THE    KINGS  183 

SECOND  DIVISION. 
Are  "  Ahab  "  and  "  Jehu  "  on  the  Monuments  ? 

CHAPTER  III.— The  Inscriptions. 

§  III.  When  the  mystery  as  to  Pul,  Menahem,  and  Azariah,  is 
settled,  there  remains  the  question:  Are  the  names  of  "Ahab"  and 
"  Jehu  "  found  on  the  Assyrian  monuments,  as  alleged  by  many  Assy- 
riologists,  with  dates  still  further  removed  from  those  of  Scripture,  re- 
quiring the  whole  Bible  chronology  of  those  and  previous  times  to  be 
reduced  forty  or  fifty  years  ?     The  facts  are  these: 

An  inscription  of  king  Shalmaneser,  dated  with  the  eponymof  B.  C. 
854  according  to  the  Canon,  contains  as  follows:  "In  the  eponymy  of 
Dayan-assur,  the  month  lyyar,  14th  day,  from  Nineveh  I  departed,  the 
river  Tigris  I  crossed,"  etc.  "From  Argana  I  departed,  to  Aroer 
[Quqa]  I  approached,  Aroer  my  royal  city  I  pulled  down,  destroyed, 
and  in  the  fire  I  burned;  12,000  chariots,  12,000  carriages,  and  20,000 
men  of  Dadidri  [Benhadar]  of  Syria,  700  chariots,  700  carriages,  and 
10,000  men  of  Irchulin  [Irhuleni]  of  Hamath,  2,000  chariots  and  10,000 
men  of  Achu-abbu  mat  Sir'lai  [Ahab  of  Sirhala],  500  men  of  the  Goim, 
*  *  *  "These  12  kings  to  his  aid  he  brought,  to  make  war  and  bat- 
tle to  my  presence  they  came,"  etc.,  *  *  *  with  them  I  fought. 
From  Aroer  to  Kirzan  their  overthrow  I  accomplished,"  etc. 

§  112.  In  two  other  inscriptions  (undated)  he  gives  the  same  ac- 
count more  briefly,  saying  it  was  "in  my  sixth  year."  and  describing 
the  confederacy  as  "Benhadar  of  Syria,  Irhulini  of  Hamath,  and  the 
12  kings  beside  the  sea,  *  *  *  with  them  I  fought."  He  repeats 
about  the  same  in  two  other  inscriptions,  as  to  what  occurred  "in  my 
tenth  year"  and  "in  my  eleventh  year;"  and  in  two  other  inscriptions 
besides,  one  of  them  as  "in  my  fourteenth  year."  In  still  another  in- 
scription (also  undated)  he  says:  "In  my  eighteenth  year  *  *  * 
Chaza-ilu  [Hazael]  of  Syria  *  *  *  with  him  I  fought  *  *  *  To 
save  his  life  he  fled.  After  him  I  pursued,  in  Damascus  his  royal  city 
I  besieged  him  *  *  *  In  those  days  the  tribute  of  Tyre  and  Sidon, 
of  laua  [Jehu]  son  of  Omri  I  received."  In  yet  another  inscription  he 
says:  "  Tribute  of  laua  son  of  Omri,  silver,  gold,  bowls  of  gold,  cups 
of  gold,  bottles  of  gold,  vessels  of  gold  *  *  *  royal  utensils,  rods 
of  wood  I  received  of  him."  And  in  another  he  tells  of  "my  twenty- 
first  year,"  and  says  he  conquered  Chaza-ilu  of  Syria." 

^T"  In  the  above,  the  names  in  brackets  [  ]  are  as  George  Smith 
gives  them;  before  the  brackets  they  are  as  given  in  the  Die.  of  Relig. 
Knowledge  (1889). 


184  PERIOD    E 

§  113.  The  larger  part  of  professional  Assyriologists  contend  that 
the  "Acha-abbu  mat  Sir'lai"  given  as  conquered  by  the  king  in  his 
"6th  year,"  means  "  Ahab  of  Israel"  put  as  at  B.  C.  754;  and  that  the 
"laua.  son  of  Omri"  given  as  put  under  tribute  in  the  king's  "  i8th 
year,"  means  "Jehu,  successor  of  Omri,"  in  Israel  put  as  at  B.  C.  742; 
which  are  42  and  41  years  after  the  Scripture  dates  for  the  death  of 
Ahab  (896)  and  the  accession  of  Jehu  (883).  On  the  contrary,  we  (with 
George  Smith  and  others)  claim  that  it  can  not  be  so,  for  three  reasons, 
which  concern,  (i)the  co?itingendes,  (2)  the  names,  (3)  the  surronndmgs. 

1.  There  is  no  certainty  in  the  Assyrian  deciphering  and  dating; 
while  on  the  other  hand  the  biblical  reckoning  is  settled  by  indubitable 
demonstrations  and  corroborations,  as  shown  in  our  "Chronology  of 
the  Kings."  The  continuity  of  the  later  part  of  the  Eponym  Canon  is 
pretty  well  assured  back  as  far  as  B.C.  763,  by  an  eclipse  of  the  sun 
recorded  in  the  Canon  as  occun-ing  "in  the  month  Sivan  of  that  year; 
which  eclipse  has  been  calculated  by  Mr.  Hind,  and  the  results  tabu- 
lated by  Mr.  Airy,  the  Astronomer  Royal,  showing  that  eclipse  to  have 
been  June  15th,  B.  C.  763.  {Ep.  Can.,  p.  8j.)  And  the  very  facts  as 
recorded  in  Scripture  being  explainable  in  accordance  therewith,  as  we 
have  shown,  form  a  decisive  confirmation  of  that  part  of  the  Canon. 
But  we  have  no  assurance  that  there  are  not  one  or  more  gaps  in  the 
Canon  before  that  date,  as  maintained  by  the  Assyriologist  Rev.  D.  H. 
Haigh  and  others.  (Prof.  Oppert  also  argued  for  a  long  gap.)  In  this 
state  of  things,  no  chronology  can  be  made  out  from  the  Canon  which 
will  positively  confute  the  accuracy  of  the  assured  Scripture  datings. 

2.  The  names  on  the  inscriptions  of  Shalmaneser,  which  are 
deciphered  and  construed  as  meaning  "Jehu  "  and  "  Ahab,"  can  not 
he  proi'cd  io  stand  for  those  kings  of  Israel. 

{a)  As  TO  Jehu. 

§  114.  The  inscription  reads  "laua,  son  of  Omri"  as  given  in  the 
Die.  of  Religious  Knowledge  (1889),  and  "Yahua,  son  of  Khumri"  as 
given  m  Chambers'  Cyc.  (1880).  Now  the  "son  of  Omri"  means 
merely  that  the  king  named  was  king  of  Samaria,  that  city  being  well 
known  as  founded  by  "Omri,"  king  of  Israel.  (I  Ki.  xvi:  22-24.)  So 
that,  among  the  Assyrians,  Samaria  was  ever  after  known  as  the  city 
and  kingdom  of  Omri.  It  is  so  called  not  onl}'  in  the  inscription  of 
Shalmaneser  before  us,  but  also  in  the  inscription  of  Vul-nirari  (begin- 
ning 812  B.  C),  [who  names  the  countries  from  which  he  exacted 
tribute  thus:  "Tyre,  Sidon,  Omri  [z.  e.,  Samaria],  Eden,  and  Phil- 
istia."  And  in  an  inscription  of  Sargon  (B.  C.  715)  he  describes  the 
people  substituted  for  the  Israelites,  when  Hoshea  and  his  forces  were 
conquered  and  carried  into  captivity,  as  being  "enslaved  and  caused 
to  be  placed  in  the  land  of  Beth  Omri,"  /.  c.,  'the  land  of  Samaria, 


THE    KINGS  185 

the  house  or  home  of  Omri.'  Tiglath-pileser  also  uses  the  same  ex- 
pression for  Samaria,  "Beth  Omri,"  as  we  have  seen  before.  Thus 
Omri=Samaria,  as  all  are  agreed;  and  the  king  lana  or  Yahua  named 
by  Shalmaneser  must  have  been  a  Samaritan  or  Israelitish  king. 

But  not  Jehu.  For,  the  son  of  Jehu,  viz:  "  Jehoahaz"  is  just  as 
readily  identified  with  the  laua  or  Yahua  of  the  inscription,  as  the 
father  Jehu  is.  Indeed,  the  Die.  of  Relig.  Knowl.  gives  lan-chazi  as 
the  way  "Jeho-ahaz"  is  spelled  by  Tiglath-pileser.  As  lau  means 
"  Jeho-[ahaz]  "  in  the  later  day,  so  laua  merely  means  Jeho-[ahaz]  in 
the  earlier  day.  It  was  very  common  to  omit  one  half  of  a  double 
name,  as  we  have  seen  before.  Now  the  reign  of  Jeho-ahaz  was,  ac- 
cording to  Scripture,  17  years  long,  from  B.  C.  857  to  840;  and  in  the 
last  part  of  his  reign,  at  B.  C.  842,  was  the  very  time  when,  according 
to  the  Canon,  Shalmaneser,  of  Assyria,  received  tribute  from  him. 
This  is  a  most  beautiful  confirmation  of  the  accuracy  of  Bible  History 
and  Chronology,  as  well  as  of  our  interpretation  put  upon  the  monu- 
mental inscription.     Each  satisfactorily  corroborates  the  other. 

{b)     As  TO  Ahab. 

§  115.  The  inscription  reads,  "  Acha-abbu  mat  Sir'lai  "  as  given  in 
the  Die.  of  Relig.  Knowl.,  which  is  "  Ahab  of  Zirhala  "  as  George  Smith 
gives  it  (in  Ep.  Can.,  p.  189).  And  he  there  says  of  it:  "The  Rev.  D. 
H.  Haigh  has  pointed  out,  that  Ziris  not  the  usual  reading  of  the  first 
character,  and  that  the  name  should  be  Suhala;  and  he  suggests  that 
the  geographical  name  Samhala  or  Savhala,  a  kingdom  near  Damas- 
cus, is  intended  in  this  place,  and  not  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  The 
hypothesis  of  Rev.  D.  H.  Haigh  may  be  correct;  certainly  he  is  right 
as  to  the  usual  phonetic  value  of  the  first  character  of  this  geographical 
name;  but  on  the  other  hand,  we  find  it  certainly  used  sometimes  for 
the  syllable  zi}-.  Even  if  the  view  of  Rev.  D.  H.  Haigh  has  to  be  given 
up,  and  if  the  reading  '  Ahab  the  Israelite '  has  to  be  accepted,  it  would 
be  possible  that  this  was  not  the  Ahab  of  Scripture.  The  time  when 
this  battle  took  place,  B.  C.  854,  was,  according  to  the  chronology  here 
suggested,  during  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz,  king  of  Israel,  B.  C.  857,  to 
840;  and  at  this  time  part  of  the  territory  of  Israel  had  been  conquered, 
and  was  held  by  the  kingdom  of  Damascus;  it  is  quite  possible  that  in 
the  part  of  the  country  under  the  dominion  of  Damascus  a  ruler  named 
Ahab  may  have  reigned,  and  that  he  may  have  assisted  Benhadad  with 
his  forces  against  the  Assyrians."     (Geo.  Smith.) 

J;  116.  It  is  doubtful  if  Zirhala  or  Siflai  means  Israel.  For,  that 
was  not  the  Assyrian  way  of  mentioning  the  domain  of  a  king;  but  they 
distinguished  him  by  the  name  of  his  capital  city  or  district,  as  seen  in 
the  list  of  Shalmaneser  before  us.  The  proper  word  here  would  have 
been  Samaria  or  Beth  Omri,  as  in  other  places.     But  if  any  one  feels 


186  PERIOD    E 

constrained  to  accept  the  meaning  there  as  "  Israel,"  it  must  be  on 
some  such  ground  as  that  given  in  the  Die.  of  Relig.  Knowl.,  namely, 
that  though  "the  first  syllable  of  Yisrael  (Israel)  is  lacking  in  Sir'lai— 
the  terminal  ai  being  simply  the  adjective  ending  in  Assyrian,  the  whole 
has  been  reasonably  identified  as  "  Ahab  of  the  Israelitish  land."  If 
then  the  7nat  Sir'lai  be  identified  as  "the  Israelitish  land,"  still 
the  first  half  of  the  king's  name  given  Acha,  is  no  more  like  the  name 
Ahab,  than  it  is  like  the  name  A/ias,  which  is  half  the  name  Jeho-ahaz 
(or  its  equivalent  Ahaz-iah,  as  we  have  seen,  §  102). 

§  117.  But  what  of  the  "  abbu"?  Our  supposition  is,  that  this  is 
not  meant  as  a  second  half  of  the  name,  but  as  the  title  given  to  the 
individual  named,  like  the  title  tartan  in  Assyria.  Gesenius  in  the  He- 
brew Lexicon  defines  thus:  "  Ab,  father.  It  is  a  primitive  word  (like 
am,  mother,  imitating  the  simplest  labial  sounds  of  the  infant  child); 
and  it  is  common  to  all  the  Semitic  dialects,  Arabian,  Chaldean,  and 
Syriac.  (Abbu,  his  father.)  But  the  word  father  often  has  a  wider 
sense,  forefather,  ancestor,  founder,  author,  benefactor,  master, 
teacher  (or  protector)."  The  word  is  often  appended  to  personal 
names,  as  Eli-ab,  God  my  father,  A-binad-ab,  Aholi-ab,  etc.  The  Brit- 
ish Com.  of  David  Brown  on  Rom.  viii:  15,  says:  "Abba  is  the  Syro- 
Chaldaic  word  iox  father;''  and  an  Assyrian  king  would  ufidei'stand 
and  use  this  word  in  that  sense. 

Our  supposition  is,  that  the  king  of  Israel  obtained  an  audience  with 
Shalmaneser,  either  before  or  after  the  battle,  and  told  him  all  the 
truth;  that  he  was  not  an  enemy  to  Assyria,  but  was  forced  into 
this  alliance  by  Benhadad  of  Damascus,  who  was  all  the  while  dis- 
tressing Israel  (See  II  Ki.  xiii:  3,  4),  that  he  would  willingly  be  sub- 
ject or  tributary  to  Assyria  if  she  would  protect  him  from  the  tyranny 
of  Syria;  that  he  was  only  acting  in  defense  of  his  country,  as  the 
"father"  ov patriarch  or  protector  of  Israel,  which  was  signified  by 
his  very  name,  part  of  which  (Jeho-)  meant  Jehovah,  the  God  and 
Father  of  Israel;  that  he  was  willing  to  act  under  the  protectorate  of 
Shalmaneser,  as  thus  simply  the  father  of  his  country,  a  subordinate 
under  a  greater  king.  It  was  common  thus  to  speak  of  a  ruler  as  a 
Father  to  his  people.  (See  Isa.  xxii:  21;  Jer.  xxxi:  9,  etc.)  So  Shal- 
maneser, recognizing  that  title  abba  "father"  by  which  Jeho-ahaz 
called  himself  in  asking  of  him  favor  and  alliance,  wrote  him  down  on 
his  inscription  as  "Acha  (for  Ahaz  or  Jeho-ahaz)  Abbu  mat  Sir'lai" 
(father  or  protector  of  the  Israehte  land).  This  was  by  the  Canon  in 
B.  C.  854,  the  6th  year  of  Shalmaneser,  and  it  was  about  the  3d  year 
of  Jeho-ahaz'  reign  of  17  years  (from  B.  C.  857  to  840),  just  as  indi- 
cated in  the  story  in  II  Ki.  xiii;  3-6. 

§  118.  In  this  unusual  designation  of  a  tributary  we  seem  to  see  a 
touch  of  sympathy  rather  than  of  sarcasm  on  the  part  of  Shalman- 
eser.    At  any  rate  pity  was  shown  in  response  to  the  earnest  entreaty. 


THE    KINGS  187 

Wicked  as  Jehoahaz  was  in  some  respects,  he  did  act  the  part  of  a 
supphant  in  behalf  of  his  land,  and  there  was  a  favorable  response 
(II  Ki.  xiii:  4-6).  Hear  it:  "And  Jehoahaz  besought  the  Lord,  and 
the  Lord  hearkened  unto  him;  for  he  saw  the  oppression  of  Israel,  be- 
cause the  king  of  Sj'ria  oppressed  them.  And  the  Lord  gave  Israel 
A  SAVIOR  [who  else  but  Assyria?];  so  that  they  went  out  from  under 
the  hand  of  the  Syrians;  and  the  children  of  Israel  dwelt  in  their  tents  as 
aforetime."  Here  we  have  a  vivid  picture  of  just  the  way  in  which 
Shalmaneser  seems  to  have  responded  to  an  appeal  of  Jehoahaz.  He 
befriended  Israel,  and  subordination  to  the  far-off  Assyrian  empire,  by 
the  protection  and  intimidation  that  it  afforded,  proved  a  salvation  of 
the  land  from  the  near  Syrian  oppression. 

This  explains  why  in  all  Shalmaneser's  accounts  of  this  conquest, 
upon  six  different  inscriptions  in  different  years,  while  mentioning  the 
two  previous  names,  Damascus  and  Hamath,  he  never  again  mentions 
Israel  among  his  conquests  after  that  first  allusion  to  ''  Ahbtc  mat  Sir' - 
lai."  He  had  accepted  that  land  in  a  different  attitude  from  the  rest. 
Shalmaneser  kept  off  their  enemies,  and  Jehoahaz  was  very  willing 
to  pay  him  tribute  for  his  protection,  as  we  have  already  seen  he  did 
near  the  close  of  his  reign  (in  B.  C.  842).  This  surrender  to  Shalma- 
neser also  explains  why  Jehoahaz  was  left  with  such  a  mere  handful 
of  forces.  (II  Ki.  xiii:  7.)  "  Neither  did  he  leave  to  Jehoahaz  but  fifty 
horsemen  and  10  chariots  and  10,000  footmen."  Why?  Because  Shal- 
maneser took  from  him  "  2,000  chariots  and  10,000  men,"  as  he  says 
in  his  inscription.  This  havoc  made  of  Israel's  resources  was  all 
brought  about  by  Syria's  outrages,  compelling  the  confederacy  against 
Shalmaneser. 

J^  119.  It  may  be  a  surprise  to  some  that  Shalmaneser  should  call 
the  same  king  of  Israel  by  two  different  names — in  his  i8th  year  nam- 
ing him  lajia  ovVa/uca,  i.  t\,  Jeho-,  and  in  his  6th  year  naming  him 
Acha  or  Ahaz.  But  we  have  seen  how  common  it  was  thus  to  divide  a 
name  into  its  two  parts  (Jeho-ahaz=Ahaz-iah),  and  to  use  either  half 
alone,  as  occasion  or  impulse  suggested.  And  we  have  fully  exhibited 
a  case,  the  very  parallel  to  this,  and  with  f/w  same  compound  name, 
"  Jeho-ahaz  "  thus  separated  years  apart.  If  any  one  is  troubled  with 
two  different  names  given  to  one  person  by  the  same  speaker  or  writer, 
we  simply  leave  him  to  the  solution  of  the  question  why  the  same 
writer  of  II  Chron.  ch.  xxi  and  xxii  has  within  10  years  (at  \er.  17,  i,  6) 
called  the  same  king  by  three  different  names  ! 

Si  120.  Our  view  above  given  concerning  II  Ki.  ch.  xiii,  and  the 
striking  expression  there,  "The  Lord  Gave  Israel  a  savior,"  was 
all  written  out  and  published  abroad  a  number  of  years  ago,  before  we 
had  seen  or  heard  anything  of  the  view  of  George  Smith,  the  famed 
Assyriologist  in  his  "  Eponym  Canon,"  wherein  he  maintains  the 
same    as     we     do    concerning    that    expression    and    that     chapter, 


1»»  PERIOD    E 

as  the  true  exhibition  of  the  events  mentioned  by  Shalmaneser. 
We  refer  to  this  fact  because  it  shows  how  independent  think- 
ers without  communication  arrive  at  the  same  conckision  as  reasona- 
ble and  satisfactory,  and  gives  additional  proof  of  the  correctness  of 
our  results.  (Our  suggestion  in  regard  to  "abbu  "  we  have  found  no- 
where.) The  full  study  of  this  great  Salvation  to  Israel  forms  a  very 
interesting  section  in  the  comparison  of  Assyrian  and  Jewish  history, 
and  it  exhibits  one  of  the  very  best  evidences  of  the  correctness  of 
the  Bible  Chronology,  and  its  harmony  with  archaeological  research 
when  fully  and  fairlv  investigated. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Surroundings. 

3.  The  historical  surroundings  of  the  life  of  Jehoahaz  agree  with 
facts  given  in  the  Shalmaneser  inscriptions,  better  than  do  the  sur- 
roundings in  the  times  of  Ahab  and  Jehu. 

Benhadad  and  Hazael. 

§  121.  It  will  be  at  once  objected,  that  Shalmaneser  in  his  sixth 
year  and' afterward  tells  of  conquering  "  Benhadad  of  Syria,  and  in  his 
eighteenth  year  and  afterward  tells  of  fighting  "  Hazael  of  Syria;" 
whereas,  there  was  (as  alleged)  no  king  of  Syria  but  Hazael,  through 
all  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz.  To  that  we  reply  :  This  is  making  Hazael 
reign  from  about  six  years  after  Ahab's  death  (II  Ki.  viii:  15,  16), 
through  the  reign  of  Joram  (7  yeai's),  and  Jehu  (28th  year)  and  Jehoa- 
haz (17  years,  II  Ki.  xiii:  i,  22,  24)  and  through  three  years  at  least  of 
Jehoash,  a  vei'y  long  reign  of  54  years,  from  B.  C.  8gi  to  837  according 
to  Scripture — and  with  fierce  warfare  at  the  very  close.  (II  Ki.  12:  17- 
21.)  Such  a  protracted  warlike  reign  was  not  likely  to  occur  in  those 
troublous  times.  On  the  other  hand,  the  obvious  impression  of 
II  Ki.  xiii:  3,  with  ver.  22,  is,  that  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz,  while  pre- 
ceded by  the  reign  of  a  Hazael,  contained  the  reign  of  a  Benhadad,  his 
son,  and  that  Jehoahaz'  reign  ende*  in  the  time  of  anotho-  Hazael. 
For,  yer.  22  does  not  teach  (as  some  assume)  that  this  last  Hazael  was 
reigning  "all  the  days  of  Jehoahaz,"  in  contradiction  of  ver.  3,  but 
only  that  this  last  Hazael  "oppressed  Israel  all  the  (remaining)  days 
of  Jehoahaz,  /.  ^.,  as  long  as  Jehoahaz  liiuui.  The  ver.  3  can  not  be 
speaking  of  the  Benhadad  of  ver.  24;  for  the  latter  was  not  like  the 
former  a  successful  oppressor  of  Israel  "all  his  days,"  but  was  a 
weak  king  who  was  beaten  by  Jehoash  three  times,  and  lost  all  "the 
cities  which  his  father  (Hazael)  had  taken  out  of  the  hand  of  Jehoahaz 
by  war." 


THE    KINGS  189 

i;  122.  We  are  right,  therefore,  in  claiming  that  the  first  Hazael 
died  not  far  from  the  time  when  Jehoahaz  began  his  reign,  say  in  his 
second  year,  B.  C.  755-6;  that  in  B.  C.  754  Shalmaneser  found  his  son 
Benhadad  on  the  thi'one;  and  that  twelve  years  later,  in  Jehoahaz'  15th 
or  i6th  year,  B.  C.  742,  when  he  paid  tribute  to  Shalmaneser,  a  second 
Hazael  was  on  the  throne  of  Syria,  having  reigned  (say)  four  years, 
from  B.  C.  746.  This  second  Hazael  must  have  reigned  at  least  ten 
years;  for  at  the  death  of  king  Joash  of  Judah  (B.  C.  736)  Hazael  was 
alive  (H  Ki.  xii:  17-21;  H  Chron.  xxiv:  23-25).  J.  Schwartz,  Assyriolo- 
gist,  of  New  York,  objects,  that  this  will  allow  more  Syrian  kings  than 
Josephus  makes  out.  Josephus  (Antiq.  7,  v:2)  says:  "  Nicolas  of  Da- 
mascus makes  mention  of  the  first  Syrian  king,  Hadad,  in  the  fourth 
book  of  his  history,  where  bespeaks  thus.  '*  *  *  Hadad  reigned 
over  Damascus  and  the  other  parts  of  Syria,  excepting  Phoenicia.  He 
made  war  against  David,  the  king  of  Judea.  *  *  *  '  He  says  of  his 
posterity,  '  When  Hadad  was  dead,  his  posterity  reigned  for  ten  gener- 
ations, each  of  his  successors  receiving  from  his  father  that  his  domin- 
ion and  this  his  name,  as  did  the  Ptolemies  in  Egypt.  But  the  third 
was  the  most  powerful  of  them  all;  he  made  an  expedition  against  the 
Jews,  and  laid  waste  the  city  which  is  now  called  Samaria,  in  the 
reign  of  Ahab.'  " 

§  123.  Schwartz  tells  us  that  this  means  "ten  kings  from  Hadad 
to  Rezin,"  and  that  the  Assyrian  records  name  three  Syrian  kings 
between  Rezin  and  the  last  Benhadad.  George  Smith  (Ep.  Can.,  p. 
191)  gives  but  two  from  the  inscriptions,  viz.:  "Hadara,"  in  the 
inscription  of  Tiglath-pileser,  given  on  p.  121,  and  Mariha  in  the  inscrip- 
tion of  Vul-nirari,  given  on  p.  115.  We  find,  therefore,  the  following, 
as  the  list  of  Syrian  kings: 

I.     Hadad,  in  the  reign  of  David  and  Solomon;   II  Sam.  viii :  5,  6,  14;   I  Ki. 
xi : 14-25. 

Benliadad  I,  son  of  Hadad,  in  Asa's  time ;  I  Ki.  xv  :  18 B.  C.  936-917 

Benhadad  II,  in  Ahab's  time;   I  Ki.  xx :  i,  34 B.  C.  917-891 

Hazael  I,  in  Jehu's  time;  II  Ki.  viii:  7,  15 B.  C.  891-856 

5.  Benhadad  III,  in  Jehoahaz'  reign;   II  Ki.  13  :  3   B.  C.  856-846 

6.  Hazael  II,  in  reign  of  Jehoahaz  and  Jehoash  ;   II  Ki.  xiii :  22-24 B.C.  846-835 

7.  Benhadad  IV,  in  reign  of  Jehoash  and  Jeroboam.  II  Ki.  xiii :  25 B.  C.  835-810 

Mariha,  in  reign  of  Jeroboam,  inscrip.  Vul-nirari B.C.  810-780 

Hadara,  in  reign  of  Menahem,  inscrip.  Tiglath-pil B.  C.  780-750 

Rezin,  in  the  reign  of  Pekah  ;   II  Ki.  xv;37 B.  C.  750-738 

If  a  third  king  be  inserted  between  7  and  10,  then  Hadad  is  not 
numbered,  but  only  his  successors,  as  intimated  in  the  language  used, 
"when  Hadad  was  dead,  \)\%  posterity  for  ten  generations  reigned." 

Ji  124.  Schwartz  rejects  our  5  and  6,  and  makes  up  the  total  10,  by  sub- 
stituting two  unauthorized  names  at  the  start;  that  is,  he  has  "  i,  Had- 
arezer;  2,  Rezon;  3,  Hezion;  4,  Benhadad  I,"  etc.  Here  "  Hadarezer" 
is  a  mistake  for  Hadad;  and  "  Rezon  "  (from  I  Kings  xi:  23,  24)  is  a  tem- 


190  PERIOD   E 

porary  partner  during  Hadad's  time,  and  not  one  of  his  ten  "pos- 
terity "  referred  to  by  Nicolas.  (Hazael  was  probably  of  the  family.) 
"  Hezion  "  (from  I  Ki.  xv:  i8)  is  no  king  at  all,  but  only  an  ancestor  of 
kings!  The  Hebrew  reads:  "Asa  sent  them  to  the  son  of  Hadad, 
(the  son  of  Tabrimon,  the  son  of  Hezion)  king  of  Syria."  The  pa- 
renthesis merely  gives  the  ancestors  of  Hadad  (the  founder  of  the 
family)  as  Rezon's  descent  is  given  at  I  Ki.  xi:  23.  George  Smith  puts 
in  both  the  "Tabrimon  "  and  the  "  Hezion"  as  two  additional  kings 
of  Syria,  calling  the  latter  the  same  as  "  Rezon  "  and  he  strangely 
makes  out  two  kings  of  Syria  at  I  Ki.  xx:  34!  There  is  some  confusion 
as  to  the  original  Hadad.  Josephus  thinks  he  was  actually  reigning  in 
Damascus  when  David  conquered  Hadarezer,  king  of  Tobah  (II  Sam. 
viii:  3,  4).  Schwartz  confounds  him  with  Hadarezer  himself. 

§  125.  But  the  fact  seems  to  be,  Hadad  was  an  Edomite,  and 
"  yet  a  little  child"  at  that  time  (comp.  II  Sam.  viii:  3,  14,  with  I  Ki, 
xi:  15-17).  He  fled  from  David  as  Rezon  fled  from  Hadadezer,  when 
David  conquered  Edom  and  Zobah,  I  Ki.  xi:  17-23,  comp.  II  Sam.  viii: 
3,  14.  Long  afterward  they  both  met  at  Damascus,  got  possession  of 
the  kingdom,  and  there  reigned  together  for  a  while  (I  Ki.  xi:  24,  "and 
they  [Hadad  and  Rezon]  went  to  Damascus,  and  dwelt  therein  and 
reigned  in  Damascus").  Rezon  died,  and  Hadad  (or  his  son)  became  sole 
king  of  Syria  after  Solomon's  time,  as  the  British  Com.,  Jamison,  says. 
The  very  writer  Nicolas,  who  is  our  only  authority  for  there  being  just 
ten  "posterity,"  particularly  affirms  that  " /"//c  //^Vrt' king  was  the  Ben- 
hadad  II  who  in  Ahab's  day  besieged  Samaria  (I  Ki.  xx:  i),  just  as  we 
put  it.     Whereas,  Schwartz  makes  him  \h&  fiftJi  king  in  order. 

If  Josephus  is  right  in  saying,  that  any  Syrian  king  was  on  occasion 
called  by  the  one  name  Benhadad,  or  "  Son  of  Hadad  "  the  father  of 
the  line,  just  as  kings  of  Egyptwere  all  called  "  Ptolemy," — then,  even 
a  Hazael  in  the  time  of  Jehoahaz  might,  on  an  Assyrian  monument,  be 
written  as  "Ben-hadad,"  and  it  would  answer  the  purpose  of  the 
canon.  But  we  have  made  it  plain  that  we  have  the  Syrian  kings  right 
with  a  second  Hazael  in  the  list.  So  certainly  is  there  a  "  Benhadad  " 
in  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz  (B.  C.  854)  to  answer  all  the  purposes  of  the 
Assyrian  Canon  and  inscription!  In  this  respect  the  siii-roun dings  are 
all  that  can  be  required. 

The  Ahab-Jehu  Interval. 

^  126.  In  respect  to  reign  adjustment,  the  surrounding  facts  of 
Ahab  and  Jehu  cannot  possibly  be  made  tofitt  he  inscription,  while  at 
Jehoahaz'  reign  the  dates  and  the  inscribed  facts  exactly  match.  Be- 
tween the  death  of  Ahab  and  the  accession  of  Jehu  were  i3years,  viz., 
Ahaziah  "2  years"  (or  2d  year)  fi-om  "the  17th  year"  to  "the  i8th 
year"  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  Jehoram  "i2yeai-s"  from  "  the  18th  year  of 


THE    KINGS  191 

Jehoshaphat"  to  the  death  of  Ahaziah  of  Judah  (I  Ki.  xxii:  51;  II  Ki.  iii: 
I,  and  ix:  16,  24,  27).  The  13  years  is  thus  determined,  not  only  by 
lengths  of  reigns  in  Israel,  but  also  by  three  synchronisms  with  Judah, 
viz.,  the  "17th  year"  and  the  "iSthyear"  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  the 
death  of  Ahaziah. 

And  it  is  further  established  by  the  given  reigns  in  Judah,  viz.,  Je- 
hoshaphat's  "  25  years  "  (I  Ki.  xxii:42,  II  Chron.  xx:  31)  after  22  of 
which,  viz.,  in  the  5th  year  of  Joram,  king  of  Israel,"  Jehoram  of  Judah 
began  his  "8  years  "(II  Ki.viii:i6,  17,11  Chron.  xxi:5).  But  the  "8  years" 
means  only  that  he  ended  in  his  8th  year  after  7  £ull  years.  For,  begin- 
ning "in  the  5th  year,"  he  ended  "in  the  12th  year  "of  Joram  of  Israel 
"the  nth  year"  then  ending — when  Ahaziah  succeeded  him  "  i  year" 
(II  Ki.  viii:  25,  26,  and  ix:  29,  II  Chron.  xxii:  2).  Thus  Jehoshaphat  lived 
3  of  his  25  years  after  his  son  Jehoram's'8  (or  7)  began,  it  being  then  5 
years  after  Ahab's  death.  And  these  5  years  added  to  the  8  years  of 
Jehoram  and  Ahaziah  ^13  years  as  the  interval  between  Ahab's  death 
and  the  death  of  both  Judah's  and  Israel's  kings,  at  the  accession  of 
Jehu.  The  same  is  proved  by  the  synchronisms,  Jehoshaphat's  first 
year,  we  are  told,  began  in  "  the  4th  year  of  Ahab"  (I  Ki.  xxii:  41);  so 
that,  the  23d  of  Jehoshaphat  began  in  the  25th  of  Ahab  (had  he  lived)  /. 
e.,  5  years  after  Ahab's  death,  given  as  "  the  5th  year"  (beginning)  of 
his  second  son,  Joram's  reign.  And  hence,  after  8  more  years  through 
the  12th  and  last  year  of  Joram,  must  be  (5+8^)13  full  years  from 
Ahab  to  Jehu,  and  mustreach  through  (22+8=)30  years  of  Jehoshaphat 
(had  he  lived),  leaving  (30 — 22=)  the  8  years  for  the  reigns  of  Jehoram 
and  Ahaziah  in  Judah. 

^  127.  Thus  we  know  for  a  certainty,  that  if  the  Bible  story  is  any 
true  history  at  all,  its  inten-al  between  Ahab  and  Jehu  is  full  13  years, 
fixed  and  assured  by  so  many  eras  and  datings  of  reigns  in  two  king- 
doms recorded  in  two  different  books,  that  it  can  not  possibly  be  made 
less.  (If  urgency  should  try  to  assume  some  further  fractional  excess 
needing  deduction,  the  interval  certainly  could  not  be  got  below  1 2  years. ) 
So  that  a  summer  campaign  in  the  first  year  of  Jehu,  must  be  14  years 
after  a  summer  campaign  iti  the  last  year  of  Ahab.  And,  since,  Assy- 
riologists  generally  concede  that  the  campaign  in  which  Shalmaneser 
fought  Benhadad  could  not  be  in  Ahab's  last  year  (when  Ahab  was 
slain  fighting  against  Benhadad),  but  must  be  in  the  next  before  his 
last  year,  therefore,  this  could  not  be  less  than  15  years  before  a  cam- 
paign in  the  first  year  of  Jehu.  By  closest  pinching,  the  interval  be- 
tween the  two  events  could  not  be  made  less  than  14  years.  Whereas, 
the  Assyrian  inscription  demands  only  12  years,  from  the  6th  to  the 
i8th  year  of  Shalmaneser  (by  the  Eponym  Canon,  B.  C.  854-842).  This 
proves  unmistakably,  that  the  application  of  this  inscription  to  such 
events  ascribed  to  Ahab  and  Jehu  is  erroneous,  and  that  our  applica- 
tion of  it  to  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz  is  reasonable  and  true. 


192  PERIOD    E 

Any  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  multiplied  scripture  numbers  given 
above,  which  go  to  fix  the  14  or  15  years'  interval,  so  as  to  crowd  it 
down  to  the  12  years  wanted,  must  be  abortive;  even  as  the  attempts 
of  Schwartz  and  of  others  have  been  shown  to  be  abortive.  For  the 
reduction  can  not  be  forced,  without  such  a  mutilation  of  the  Scripture 
numbers  given,  as  would  leave  it  a  repudiated  record,  not  by  any  pos- 
sibility corrupted  to  what  it  is,  but  necessarily  and  originally  a  false 
history,  gotten  up  by  writers  who  did  not  know  what  they  were  talking 
about.  The  same  may  be  said  of  all  the  circumstances  and  surround- 
ings of  the  history;  they  can  not  be  made  to  agree  with  the  theory  of 
Ahab  and  Jehu  as  brought  under  subjection  and  tiibute  to  Assyria. 
(See  a  remarkable  monumental  confirmation  at  §  48.) 

The  Course  of  Events. 

§  128.  "It  does  not  seem  likely  that  the  biblical  Ahab,  who  was 
the  foe  of  the  king  of  Damascus,  sent  any  troops  to  his  aid;  at  least, 
such  a  circumstance  is  never  hinted  at  in  the  Bible,  and  is  contrary  to 
the  description  of  his  character  and  reign.  Under  these  circumstances, 
I  have  given  up  the  identification  of  the  Ahab  who  assisted  Ben-hadad 
at  the  battle  of  Quarqar,  B.  C.  854,  with  the  Ahab,  king  of  Israel,  who 
-died,  I  believe,  45  years  earlier."    {George  Smith,  Ep.  Can.,  p.  igo.) 

It  is  irrational  to  think  of  Ahab  as  ever  a  confederate  helping  Ben- 
hadad.  For,  the  Scripture  history  of  Ahab,  which  seems  on  its  face 
reliable  and  in  harmony  with  all  that  precedes  and  follows,  presents 
Ahab  as  repeatedly  at  war  with  that  arrogant  Benhadad,  and  success- 
ful against  him  and  his  confederates,  "  thirty  and  two  kings"  (I  Ki.  xx: 
1-6,  II,  20,  21,  and  ver.  26,  29,  30), — and  at  last  as  meeting  his  death  in 
fighting  him.  (Chap.  22.)  After  his  victories  Ahab  had  been  too  leni- 
ent in  letting  Benhadad  live,  and  a  prophet  had  warned  him  that  he 
would  suffer  for  it  (xx:  34,  42).  Benhadad  broke  his  pi^omise  to  restore 
the  cities  of  Ramoth  Gilead;  and  after  the  novelty  of  three  years  with- 
out war  between  Syria  and  Israel  (xxii:  i),  Ahab  again,  in  company 
with  Jehoshaphat,  went  forth  against  Benhadad,  for  the  recovery  of 
Gilead  (ver.  3),  and  Ahab  was  slain  (ver.  17).  Now  it  is  in  that  inter- 
vening truce  of  three  years  (which  probably  contained  only  two  whole 
years,  after  the  Jewish  fashion  of  speech),  that  Assyriologists  try  to 
work  in  the  inscription  account  of  Benhadad  conquered  at  Aroer  (or 
Quarqar)  with  his  confederate  Ahab  and  others. 

That  is,  they  would  represent  Ahab  as  fighting  in  helpful  confed- 
eracy with  Benhadad,  only  one  year  before  Ahab  died  fighting  against 
Benhadad,  for  a  grievance  existing  all  these  years — and  less  than  two 
years  after  Ahab  had  awfully  whipped — almost  annihilated  Ben-hadad, 
mercifully  letting  him  off  with  his  life,  upon  a  promise  which  being 
forthwith  broken  compelled  this  last  fatal  fight.  Does  the  theory  of  an 


THE    KINGS  193- 

intermediate  alliance  of  Ahab  loidcr  Benhadad  look  at  all  likely  or 
reasonable  on  its  face  ?  Here  was  Benhadad  completely  broken  up 
and  crushed  two  years  in  succession  by  Ahab,  100,000  of  his  men  slain 
in  one  day,  and  27,000  the  next  day  (Ch.  xx:  29,  30,  21),  yet  represented 
as  within  two  years  heading  a  confederacy  with  large  forces  against 
Assyria, — and  stranger  still,  as  having  under  him  as  subaltern  that 
very  King  Ahab  to  whose  mercy  he  owed  his  life,  and  whose  new  rage 
he  was  already  exciting  by  breach  of  the  life-pledge  he  had  given  ! 

§  129.  So  absurd  is  the  theory  that  the  Assyrian  inscription  refers 
to  the  Scripture  Ahab,  that  Chambers'  Cyc,  while  accepting  the  in- 
scription of  the  i8th  year  of  Shalmaneser  as  meaning  Jehu,  yet  omits 
all  mention  of  the  inscription  of  his  6th  year,  as  being  altogether  too 
doubtful  to  be  claimed  as  meaning  Ahab.  And  Dr.  Orr,  in  the  Presby- 
terian Review  (New  York,  January,  1889),  while  in  general  sustaining 
the  Assyrian  dates  as  against  those  of  the  Bible,  yet  after  all  his 
endeavor  to  work  in  Ahab,  decides  as  most  probable,  that  the  name 
interpreted  as  Ahab  is  an  Assyrian  mistake.  He  says  (p.  57):  "The 
date  for  the  death  of  Ahab  is  about  a  year  too  high  to  admit  of  his 
presence  at  the  (Assyrian)  battle  of  Karkar  in  B.  C.  854,  which  yet,  it' 
is  allowed,  can  not  be  put  earlier  than  Ahab's  last  or  second-last  year, 
This  raises  an  interesting  question.  Wellhausen  strongly  contends, 
and  Kemphansa  agrees  with  him,  that  the  king  who  sent  a  contingent 
to  the  battle  of  Karkar  could  not  have  been  Ahab.  There  is  the  chron- 
ological difficulty;  but  apart  from  this,  it  is  agreed  that  //  is  in  the 
highest  deg7'ee  improbable  *  *  *  that  Ahab  should  fight  as  a  volun- 
tary ally  of  Benhadad.  *  *  *  Wellhausen  therefore  thinks  that  the 
battle  of  Karkar  took  place  after 'Chq  battle  of  Ramoth  Gilead;  that  the 
king  who  sent  a  contingent  to  it  was  not  Ahab  but  Joram;  and  that  the 
mistake  in  the  name  arose  from  the  ignorance  or  carelessness  of  the 
scribe,  who  knew  nothing  of  the  changes  on  the  throne  of  Israel. 
There  is  much  to  be  said  for  this  view."  Thus  distinctly  is  it  con- 
fessed by  Assyriologists,  that  no  dependence  can  be  put  upon  the 
Assyrian  naming  of  a  Jewish  king. 

g  130.  There  was  no  place  for  either  voluntary  or  forced  alliance 
with  Syria,  till  long  after  the  days  of  Ahab.  In  the  reign  of  Ahab's 
successor  Jehoram,  still  "the  king  of  Syria  warred  against  Israel"  (II 
Ki.  vi:  8),  but  was  not  successful  (ver.  23);  and  yet  afterward  (ver.  24) 
"  Benhadad,  king  of  Syria,  gathered  all  his  host,  and  went  up,  and  be- 
sieged Samaria;"  but  was  beaten  (vii:'6.  7).  Still  again,  after  some 
years,  Jeheram  was  in  "war  against  Hazael  king  of  Syria"  (viii:  28); 
in  which  war  Jehoram  was  wounded,  and  soon  was  slain  by  Jehu  (ix 
24).  When  Jehu,  thereupon,  under  appointment  of  God,  was  so  val- 
iently  sweeping  down  all  enemies — was  such  a  dashing,  daring,  suc- 
cessful king  as  he  the  man  to  succumb  without  a  fight  and  pay  the 
first  tribute  to  a  distant  power,  as  alleged  ?     For,  be  it  noticed,  the 


194  PERIOD    E 

Assyrian  inscription  says  nothing  of  any  fighting  with  ' '  the  son  of 
Omri"  only  of  tribute  received  from  him,  as  if  a  natural  expected  con- 
tinuation of  past  affairs.  This  fits  the  case  of  Jehoahaz,  as  we  saw, 
but  is  quite  out  of  place  as  a  first  payment  of  tribute  from  such  a  man 
as  Jehu. 

The  warfare  against  Syria  went  on.  In  Jehu's  time,  about  B.  C. 
860,  we  read  (II  Ki.  x:  23):  "In  those  days  the  Lord  began  to  cut 
Israel  short.  And  Hazael  (king  of  Syria)  smote  them  in  all  the  coasts 
or  Isi"ael,"  Jordan,  Gilead,  Galilee,  etc.  It  was  war,  war,  continually 
repeated  war  between  Israel  and  Syria;  and  now  at  last  it  was  getting 
to  be  more  fatal  to  Israel.  But  it  was  not  till  Jehu's  son,  the  weak  Je- 
hoahaz, ascended  the  throne  and  reigned  from  B.  C.  856-7  to  840  (II  Ki. 
xiii:  i),  that  there  seems  any  place  for  the  king  of  Israel  to  be  found  in 
a  strained  confederacy  with  any  Benhadad  or  Syrian  king.  Then  at 
length  the  king  of  Syria  had  got  the  upper  hand,  and  could  dictate' 
terms;  and  he  soon  after  turned  his  arms  against  Judah  also  (xii:  17). 

§  131.  Israel  was  left,  under  its  feeble  Jehoahaz,  to  submit  to  the 
Syrian  oppressions  (xiii:  1-3):  "The  anger  of  the  Lord  was  kindled 
against  Israel,  and  he  delivered  them  into  the  hand  of  Hazael,  king  of 
Syria,  and  into  the  hand  of  Benhadad,  the  son  of  Hazael,  all  their 
days."  So  that,  as  now,  reduced  to  be  an  unwilling  confederate  with 
the  king  of  Syria,  Jehoahaz  may  well  have  got  beaten  with  him  in  a 
conflict  with  the  king  of  Assyria,  in  B.  C.  854,  two  or  three  years  after 
he  (Jehoahaz)  began  to  reign,  just  as  the  inscription  of  Shalmaneser 
describes. 

Or  rather,  he  may  have  taken  the  opportunity  to  become  a  betrayer 
instead  of  a  helper  of  Benhadad,  by  getting  the  Assyrian  monarch  to 
be  to  him  "a  savior"  from  the  rapacity  of  Syria  (xiii:  4,  5).  The 
struggle  would  still  go  on  between  the  «^/^//<^0r«z_^^  nations  (ver.  xxii); 
but  the  overshadowing  favor  of  the  far-off  monarch  toward  Jehoahaz 
would  keep  Syria  somewhat  in  check  and  Jehoahaz  would  gladly  of  his 
own  accord  pay  tribute  to  Assyria  for  this  protection,  as  the  inscrip- 
tion describes  concerning  this  "  son  of  Omri,"  in  B.  C.  842. 

Conclusion. 

§  132.  We  see  not  how  it  could  be  possible  for  Israel  to  receive 
so  great  an  onset  from  Assyria  as  the  inscriptions  suppose— Israel's 
first  connection  with  that  great  world-power — without  any  allusion  to 
it  in  the  Jewish  history,  so  full  and  complete;  which  is  the  predicament 
in  which  the  critics  who  claim  Ahab  and  Jehu  as  the  kings  referred  to, 
find  themselves  placed.  But  if  the  reference  was  to  Jehoahaz,  then 
we  have  in  the  Jewish  history  a  striking  allusion  to  this  great  turn  in 
Jewish  affairs — an  allusion  obscure  indeed,  as  we  might  expect  it  to  be 
because  calling  that  great  world-power  "a  savior,"  which  was  yet  to 


THE    KINGS  195 

be  the  waster  and  destroyer  of  Samaria — but  an  allusion  whose 
mystery  hitherto  is  now  happily  cleared  up  by  these  Assyrian  inscrip- 
tions excavated,  so  well  bringing  forth  the  meaning  and  corroborating 
the  truthfulness  of  God's  Holy  Word. 

Nebuchadnezzar  too,  of  Babylon,  was  spoken  of  as  in  some  sense 
a  savior  of  Judah  from  utter  extinction,  by  the  very  means  of  his 
capturing  Jerusalem;  and  the  captives  were  exhorted  to  go  cheerfully, 
under  the  saving  mercy,  to  the  exile  in  Babylon.  ,  (See  Jer.  xxvii:  6-17, 
and  xx'xviii:  2,  and  xlii:  11,  and  xliii:  10.)  So  light  comes  out  of  dark- 
ness; and  the  truth  of  Scripture  emerges  from  the  smoke  and  error  of 
criticism  ! 


PART    IV. 


Comparative  Reliability  of  The  Jewish  and  The 
Pagan  Chronology. 

CHAPTER  I. 

ASSYRIOLOGY    AND    THE    BiBLE. 

§  133.  The  chronology  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  for  their  491  years 
from  the  second  year  of  Darius,  B.  C.  520,  to  the  fourth  of  Solomon, 
B.  C.  loii,  is  what  we  here  compare  with  the  chronology  of  the  same 
time  as  given  by  the  surrounding  nations,  Assyria,  Egypt,  Tyre,  etc. 

In  all  past  ages,  the  Bible  Chronology,  back  through  the  Jewish 
kings  (to  the  beginning  of  David's  reign  as  in  B.  C.  1053  or  5),  has  been 
accepted  universally  as  the  only  reliable  reckoning  we  have;  Assyrian, 
Egyptian,  and  Tyrian  data  being  seen  to  be  very  uncertam,  and 
unworthy  of  comparison  with  the  Scripture  authority. 

But  there  has  now  (in  1892)  arisen  a  behef,  particularly  among 
Assyriologists,  that  the  "  Eponym  Canon,"  so-called — a  record  deciph- 
ered from  the  inscriptions  unearthed  at  Nineveh  by  Layard,  and 
described  by  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  in  the  London  Athenaeum  for  May 
and  July,  1862 — give  us  a  sure  chronology  of  those  times,  differing 
greatly  from  the  Scripture  reckoning;  which  (they  say)  must  be  cor- 
rected accordingly. 

Our  purpose  is  to  show  that  there  is  no  certainty  about  the  alleged 
new  chronology;  that  the  Bible  history  and  chronology  still  remains 
more  reliable  than  any  other;  and  that  it  is  altogether  premature  to 


196  PERIOD    E 

alter  our  ancient  dating,  as  some  are  beginning  to  do,  *  or  to  lose  faith 
in  Scripture  as  a  true  and  reliable  history  of  the  ancient  ages. 

§  134.  The  first  and  foremost  claim  of  an  Assyriologist  will  be 
that  Scripture  is  otjly  a  book,  copied  from  age  to  age,  and  so  liable  to 
all  kinds  of  corruption  and  alteration;  while  the  inscribed  rock  or  plas- 
ter is,  we  are  sure,  the  original,  just  as  prepared  two  or  three  thousand 
years  ago.  So  the  monumental  statement  is  thought  to  have  vastly 
moi"e  authority  than  any  book  utterance  can  have.  But  this  depends, 
as  we  shall  see.  There  may  be  much  less  difference  than  at  first  sup- 
posed, in  the  authority  of  stone  or  mortar  over  parchment  or  paper. 

The  weight  which  any  document  has  in  determining  truth,  depends 
(i)  upon  its  source,  (2)  upon  its  contents;  and  both  must  combine  to 
give  authority  to  the  writing.  Though  the  source  of  an  excavated 
monumental  inscription  should  give  it  at  first  glance  a  greater  authority 
than  if  transmitted  on  more  perishable  material,  yet  its  contents  when 
studied  may  be  found  so  much  less  clear,  and  decisive,  and  self- 
convincing,  as  to  be  entirely  overcome  in  weight  by  the  paper  state- 
ment. 

If  in  some  old  cemetery  a  grave-stone  should  be  found,  stating  that 
the  deceased  died  in  A.  D.  1767  on  the  very  day  when  American  Inde- 
pendence was  declared,  that  would  not  revolutionize  the  accepted  date 
of  the  American  Revolution  as  contained  in  books.  And  if  an  Assyrian 
inscription  has  been  found,  with  obscure  or  uncertain  indications  of 
some  Bible  evertt  out  of  its  place,  that  is  not  sufficient  to  overturn  the 
unmistakable  dating  of  Scripture  history. 

^  135-  What  are  the  facts  ?  On  the  one  hand  we  have  the  Jewish 
Scriptures,  of  whose  correct  transmission  to  us  from  the  very  times  of 
the  kings,  without  serious  alterations  or  mistakes  there  can  be  no  doubt, 
and  no  one  has  a  doubt;  f  while  the  time  covered  by  those  kings  is 
therein  clearly  and  repeatedly  explained  in  multiplied  dates  and  cross- 
dates  so  fixed  and  determined  as  to  make  certain  that  we  have  the  very 


*  Some  of  the  Lesson  Helps  to  our  International  Sunday  School 
studies  are  already  giving  changed  Bible  dates,  drawn  from  the  uncer- 
tain theories  of  Assyriology. 

f  To  show  how  surely  the  Bible  numbers  are  transmitted  to  us  un- 
changed, as  certainly  as  "if  found  inscribed  on  contemporary  monuments, 
notice  the  following  facts:  The  great  historian,  Josephus,  in  the  first 
century,  avowedly  quoting  from  the  Hebrew  Scripture,  gives  the  same 
total  of  added  reigns  in  Judah  and  Israel  as  we  have  now  in  our  Hebrew 
Bible.  This  we  have  elsewhere  shown.  And  now  I  find  in  the  Talmud 
("  Solomon  the  wise,"  p.  204  of  London  Ed.,  5636,  A.  M.),  that  from 
Solomon's  reign  to  the  destruction  of  the  temple  was  "433  years;" 
which  is  precisely  what  the  reigns  as  given  in  our  Hebrew  Bible  still 
add  up,  thus:  Solomon  40  +  to  capture  of  Samaria  260  +  to  end  of  Zede- 
kiah  133  =  total  433.  It  is  evident  that  there  has  been  no  mutilation  of 
the  original. 


THE    KINGS  197 

reckoning  intended  by  the  writers,  and  to  leave  no  possibility  of  our 
misunderstanding  the  length  of  time  they  meant  to  describe.  The 
writers  are  reliable,  their  own  statements  are  plainly  before  us,  and 
the  meaning  can  not  be  mistaken.  If  ever  there  was  an  indisputable 
record  of  assured  dates,  it  is  here  in  the  Jewish  history  of  "  the  kings." 

-^  136.  On  the  other  hand,  Ass3'rian  research  has  unearthed  for  us 
certain  fi^agmentary  tablets  of  those  olden  times,  inscribed  with  a  long 
list  of  Assyrian  names,  which  are  interpreted  as  designating  the  suc- 
cessive years;  some  of  which  names  are  found  given  on  other  monu- 
ments, which  in  a  few  cases  are  thought  to  allude  to  Jewish  incidents; 
and  those  names  counted  up,  as  meaning  one  year  to  each  name,  do 
not  make  out  so  many  years  as  the  Jewish  history  claims  between  those 
incidents  thought  to  be  alluded  to.  So  that,  if  this  Assyrian  theorizing 
be  considered  ti^ue  and  infallible,  the  Bible  account  must  be  false  in  all 
its  dating,  and  over  40  years  must  be  dropped  out  of  its  details,  item 
by  item,  greatly  mutilating  its  various  statements,  to  bring  it  into 
agreement  with  this  (so  called)  "  Eponym  Canon"  of  Assyria  thus 
treated  as  infallible. 

JJ  137.  It  will  be  seen  at  once,  how  precarious  and  uncei'tain  is  this 
Canon  reckoning,  compared  with  the  sure  word  of  Scripture;  and  how 
evidently  the  seeming  superiority  of  the  monumental  source  of  infor- 
mation is  outweighed  by  the  obscurity  and  uncertainty  of  its  contents. 
So  that  the  sure  and  plain-speaking  Bible  has  more  historical  authority 
than  the  enigmatical  Canon,  and  can  never  be  overturned  by  it  without 
further  light.  The  Assyrian  inscriptions  do  indeed  give  wonderful  con- 
firmation to  the  scriptural  events  as  occurring  about  as  the  Bible  records 
them.  But  those  Assyrian  items  are  not  dated  with  sufficient  definite- 
ness  and  certainty,  to  put  the  precise  and  assured  dates  of  Scripture 
in  fault. 

Let  us  examine  the  Canon  reckoning  more  closely,  and  see  how 
much  of  authority  it  has  as  an  alleged  infallible  chronology.  There 
are  three  respects,  in  which  we  shall  find  its  certainty  impaired;  (i)  as 
to  the  perfect  and  sure  conscciitivcncss  of  years;  (2)  as  to  the  certain 
accuracy  and  infallibility  of  those  reporting  ihe  list  of  names;  (3)  as  to 
the  correctness  and  certainty  of  Assyriologists  in  their  mterpreti?tg  of 
events  referred  to  and  their  identifying  of  names  alleged. 

^  138.  (I.)  As  to  the  perfect  and  sure  consecutiveness  of  years  indi- 
cated by  the  list  of  names,  Geo.  Smith  in  his  valuable  work  on  "The 
Eponym  Canon,"  London,  1875  (p.  22),  thus  explains  the  case: 

"In  Assyria,  the  practice  of  dating  documents  according  to  the 
regnal  years  of  the  reigning  monarchs  was  seldom  used;  by  far  the 
greater  number  of  inscriptions  being  dated  by  the  names  of  certain 
officers  called  by  the  Assyrians  limn:  a  word  which,  by  general  consent, 
is  translated  'eponym.'  The  Assyrian  limn  or  eponyms  were  ap- 
pointed according  to  a  general  rotation;  and  each  one  in  succession  held 


198  PERIOD    E 

office  for  a  year,  and  gave  name  to  that  }''ear;  the  usage  of  the  Assyrians 
in  this  respect  being  similar  to  that  of  the  Archons  at  Athens,  and  the 
Consuls  at  Rome.  The  Lord  Mayors  of  London  are  also  appointed  for 
a  year,  and  a  parallel  case  would  be  presented  if  we  dated  our  docu- 
ments according  to  the  years  when  successive  Lord  Mayoi's  held  office, 
calling  the  years  after  their  names." 

Now  we  see  at  once  how  uncertain  is  such  a  mode  of  dating  applied 
to  long  periods  of  time.  The  same  official  may  at  times  serve  two  or 
more  years  in  succession,  or  years  of  peculiar  emergency  may  occur 
when  no  assignment  takes  place.  Periods  of  tumult  or  revolution  may 
come  interrupting  the  order.  And  when  after  a  time  the  old  list  is 
written  down  to  date,  the  new  names  may  not  be  rightly  joined  to  the 
old.  Thus  in  various  ways  the  consecutiveness  of  the  years  may  be 
broken  up. 

§  139.  Mr.  Smith  gives  the  naming  of  years  by  the  Roman  consuls 
as  an  illustration.  This  plan  was  accurate  for  a  few  years  at  the  time 
of  occurrence;  but  it  was  found  often  misleading,  in  dating  back  after 
a  long  period  had  elapsed.  We  all  know  how  mixed  up  became  the 
consular  reckoning,  as  used  by  the  early  Christian  chroniclers  for 
measuring  the  times  of  the  New  Testament  history.  Thus  Epiphanius 
(A.  D.  403)  omitted  the  consuls  of  A.  D.  4  in  explaining  the  years  of 
Christ's  life,  as  shown  by  Clinton  (Fas.  Hel.,  at  A.  D.  14).  From  him 
this  error  in  the  consular  list  was  propagated  down  the  ages  in  the 
"  Paschal  Chronicle."  And  Eusebius  got  an  extra  consulate  interpo- 
lated at  A.  D.  69.  Afterward  Prosper  and  Victorius  had  the  early 
consuls  much  disarranged.  (See  my  "  History  of  the  Early  Christian 
Chronicles,"  p.  41-49.) 

How  uncertain  must  be  such  a  method  of  dating  long  intervals, 
with  no  lengths  of  reign  given,  and  no  periods  of  time  designated  (such 
is  the  Assyrian  reckoning) — compared  with  the  Jewish  method,  giving 
the  length,  the  beginning,  and  the  end  of  each  reign,  with  the  inter- 
locking synchronisms,  and  dates  of  two  contemporaneous  series  of 
kings,  in  Judah  and  Israel,  and  with  long  prophetic  and  typical 
periods  comfirming  the  whole.  Some  writers  speak  of  the  wonderful 
excellence  of  the  Assyrian  chronology,  and  even  present  it  in  dispar- 
agement of  Bible  chronology  as  far  less  reliable.  But  looked  at  care- 
fully and  honestly,  that  Pagan  method  can  no  more  stand  before  the 
Scripture  dating  than  a  candle  can  illuminate  the  sun. 

§  140.  It  does  not  matter  whether  we  can  point  out  any  break  in 
the  order  of  Eponym  years;  the  system  is  liable  to  such  breaks,  and 
this  destroys  the  certainty  of  its  chronology  as  a  whole,  whatever 
assurance  we  have  about  particular  parts  of  it.  Some  of  the  shrewd- 
est Assyriologists,  Oppert,  Haigh,  etc.  (see  Eponym  Canon,  p.  73), 
have  thought  they  saw  evidence  of  gaps;  and  whether  they  were  right 
or  wrong,  we  ourselves  perceive  great  possibility  of  more  or  less  inter- 


THE    KINGS  199 

ruption  of  the  order  especially  in  the  early  part  of  the  canon,  from 
B.  C.  820  backward,  where  the  canon  is  most  meager  (giving  only  the 
list  of  names  without  any  explanation  of  their  office  or  mention  of  any- 
thing occurring  in  each  year).  It  is  in  this  meager  part  of  the  canon, 
that  the  greatest  conflict  with  Scripture  is  imagined;  and  just  here  is 
the  most  uncertainty  in  the  canon  itself. 

§  141.  When  the  canon's  list  of  names  has  been  applied  to  reach 
backward  to  B.  C.  820,  soon  after  Sam-si-vul  III  began  to  reign,  we 
find  that  there,  at  B.  C.  820  and  821,  there  is  extant  only  a  single  copy 
of  the  canon  (called  copy  I),  with  nothing  to  coniirm  its  names,  or  the 
number  of  the  names  there  belonging.  There  it  seems  as  if  the 
original  list  ended;  and  in  adding  what  follows,  which  was  not  done 
until  120  years  afterward  (as  shown  by  George  Smith,  Ep.  Can., 
p.  151),  there  may  very  easily  have  been  an  interruption  of  the  regular 
order. 

Rev.  D.  H.  Haigh,  Assyriologist  (Ep.  Can.,  p.  73),  believed  there 
was  a  gap  hereabouts,  at  B.  C.  829;  and  thought  he  could  show  the 
length  of  it  as  19  years.  But  without  accepting  his  view,  we  see  how 
greatly  possible  it  is,  that  hereabouts,  at  the  close  of  Shalmaneser's 
reign,  in  the  tumult  of  those  times,  there  may  be  a  gap  of  some  years 
in  the  record  of  names. 

Says  George  Smith  (Ep.  Can.,  p.  73):  "  It  is  related,  in  the  mono- 
lith inscription  of  Samsivul  III  [beginning  B.  C.  825],  that  during  the 
reign  of  his  father,  Shalmaneser  II,  another  son  of  that  king,  named 
Assurdainpal,  revolted  against  him,  and  was  followed  by  twenty-seven 
districts  of  Assyria,  principally  in  the  east  and  south.  These  districts 
were  subdued,  and  again  brought  under  the  rule  of  Shalmaneser  by 
Samsivul,  who  afterward  succeeded  to  the  throne,  instead  of  the 
rebel  prince." 

§  142.  Who  does  not  see  the  likelihood  of  interruption  in  the 
record  of  Eponyms  during  such  a  rebellion,  and  of  a  gap  occurring  in 
the  joining  on  of  the  subsequent  list,  not  made  up  till  120  years  after- 
ward ?  There  is  an  unprecedented  incident  of  B.  C.  828,  given  by  the 
canon  for  that  year,  which  corroborates  this  suggestion.  The  canon 
gives  "  Shalmaneser,  the  king,"  as  Eponym  of  that  year  again,  after 
he  had  been  Eponym  30  years  before.  This  return  to  a  position  occu- 
pied by  no  other  king  but  once,  may  either  have  instigated  the  rebel- 
lion that  occurred,  or  may  have  resulted  from  it  as  a  re-instatement  of 
the  king.  In  either  case,  the  Eponym  list  had  hereabouts  an  interrup- 
tion of  order,  very  possibly  resulting  in  a  loss  of  some  years'  reckoning. 
We  do  not  present  this  as  proof  of  a  gap.  We  only  show  that  a 
gap  is  possible.  It  can  not  be  proved,  and  probably  never  can  be,  that 
there  was  no  gap  in  the  canon;  and  that  being  so,  there  can  be  no  such 
certainty  as  some  claim  in  the  Assyrian  dating,  wherewith  to  set  aside 
the  sure  record  of  Bible  history.     We  may  have  pretty  good  confidence 


200  PERIOD   E 

in  the  later  part  of  the  Eponym  canon,  where  an  eclipse  of  the  sun  in 
the  month  Sivan  of  B.  C.  763  gives  confirmation*  (though  not  full  assur- 
ance; because  the  day  of  the  month  is  not  given,  nor  the  degree  of 
eclipse,  so  that  in  a  choice  of  many  years,  there  might  be  a  dupli- 
cate eclipse  within  that  month).  But  as  to  the  earlier  and  more  meager 
part  of  the  Canon,  where  the  chief  conflict  with  Scripture  is  alleged, 
we  can  have  no  assurance  at  all. 

§  143.  (II.)  As  to  the  certain  accuracy  and  infallibility  of  those 
reporting  the  Eponym  list  of  names  to  the  sculptor,  George  Smith, 
the  esteemed  Assyriologist,  informs  us  (p.  151):  "The  eai^liest  known 
copies  of  the  Assyrian  Canon  mere  made  in  the  reign  of  Sennacherib 
(about  B.  C.  700),  that  is,  about  150  years  after"  the  alleged  reference 
to  Ahab  and  Jehu.  What  proof  have  we  that  these  first  copies  give 
an  accurate  account  of  those  earliest  years  occurring  so  long  before 
their  time  ?  Why  was  not  the  engraver  or  sculptor  of  B.  C.  700  liable 
to  have  the  period  from  B.  C.  890  to  820  somewhat  disarranged  ?  If 
New  Testament  scholars  could  bring  no  evidence  for  the  events  nar- 
rated in  the  four  gospels,  except  a  first  reference  to  them  150  years 
after  their  alleged  occurrence,  with  no  known  existence  of  those  gos- 
pels till  that  late  date — certainly  there  would  be  a  great  outcry  of  scep- 
ticism against  the  claim  of  certainty  as  to  the  New  Testament  history. 
What  better  claim  has  the  alleged  Assyrian  dating  of  Ahab  and  Jehu 
to  be  considered  a  certainty  ? 

g  144.  Man  is  fallible.  And  even  an  Assyrian  fashioner  of  inscrip- 
tions was  liable  to  get  in  a  mistake,  either  of  a  name,  or  of  its  spelling, 
or  of  the  location  of  an  incident  occurring  150  years  before  his  time. 
Even  an  Assyrian  inscription  is  not  necessarily  infallible.  A  Pagan 
writer  or  engraver  was  just  as  likely,  to  say  the  least,  to  commit  a 
blunder  concerning  Jewish  affairs,  as  was  a  native  Jew  in  writing  by 


*  Yet,  that  very  fixing  of  the  Eponym  Canon  at  B.  C.  763  may  prove 
that  there  is  an  omission  (9/ ^;zt'ji/<;'(?r  somewhere  after  that  in  the  Canon. 
For,  as  Schwartz  tells  us  {Letter^  April,  i8gj),  "  Ptolemy's  Canon  has 
the  accession  of  Esar-haddon,  Assur-banipal,  Nabonassar,  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, and  Evil-merodach,  at  B.  C.  680,  667,  625,  604,  and  561,  all  one 
year  too  late  by  the  Eponym  Canon."  Instead  of  proving  by  this  (as 
Schwartz  attempts,  and  even  Geo.  Smith  thoughtlessly  allows,  Ep. 
Can.,  p.  102)  that  Ptolemy's  Canon />^?5Adates  the  reigns — a  theory  en- 
tirely untenable  (see  Period  F,  §  2) — this  discrepancy  more  likely 
shows  that  the  Eponym  Canon  /las  lost  one  year  (say)  right  before 
"  Eponym  Shalmaneser,  king  of  Assyria,"  B.  C.  723.  For,  there  would 
regularly  come  as  Eponym  the  governor  of  Arbela,  and  there  is  there 
but  a  single  copy  of  the  Canon;  so  that,  the  omission  might  readily 
occur  in  the  confusion  at  the  death  of  the  king,  so  peculiarly  ^&njust 
serving  as  Eponym.  With  a  year  there  inserted,  the  Eponym  Canon 
would  agree  with  Ptolemy's  Canon  in  all  the  dates  referred  to,  and  so 
(by  that  indisputable  authority)  would  be  greatly  confirmed  as  far  back 
as  B.  C.  763. 


THE    KINGS  ■  201 

authority  the  history  of  his  own  land  in  his  own  time.  The  Pagan  was 
only  stringing  together  lists  of  names  handed  down  to  him  from  150 
years  before,  with  no  certifying  or  rectifying  number  accompanying 
them.  Whereas,  the  Jew  was  an  official  recorder  of  the  current  his- 
tory, giving  numbers  of  years  and  coincidences  of  reigns  in  two  king- 
doms, and  passing  his  work  along  from  one  generation  to  another  of 
official  history. 

We  say  nothing  here  of  any  divine  inspiration  or  special  providence, 
guarding  the  Jewish  history  against  error.  We  only  claim,  that  the 
method  of  record  and  transmission  gives  far  greater  credibility  to  the 
Scriptural  than  to  the  alleged  Assyrian  chronology,  and  more  than 
counterbalances  any  advantage  thought  to  arise  from  an  unearthed  in- 
scription over  a  written  book.  Look,  for  illustration,  at  the  careful- 
ness, fullness,  and  assured  contemporary  accuracy  of  the  Jewish  period 
from  Solomon's  death  to  the  reign  of  Elah,  the  fourth  king  of  Israel — 
as  given  in  the  book  of  Kings. 

§  145.  "  Rehoboam  reigned  17  years,  and  Jeroboam  22  years  (I  Ki. 
xiv:  20,  21);  in  Jeroboam's  i8th  year  Abijam  of  Judah  began  his  3  years 
(xv:  I,  2);  in  Jeroboam's  20th  year  Asa  of  Judah  began  his  41  years 
(v«r.  9,  10);  in  Asa's  2nd  year  Nadab  of  Israel  began  his  two  years 
(ver.  25);  in  Asa's  3d  year  Baasha  of  Israel  began  his  24  years  (ver.  33); 
in  Asa's  26th  year  Elah  of  Israel  began  his  2  years  "  (x:  8). 

This  Bible  reckoning,  put  into  tabular  form,  has  to  read  as  fol- 
lows : 

Judah.  B.  C.  Israel. 

ist  Rehoboam  17 =974= ••  ist  Jeroboam  22(nd) 

{l8th)       "       =istAbijam3    =957  = iSth 

ist  Asa  41      =   {4th)      "  =954= 20th  "     (ended) 

2nd  "    =  953=ist  Nadab  2(nd)=  .  .(22nd)  " 

3d     "    =  952=(2nd)    "  =...ist     Baasha  24(th) 

26th"    =929=ist    Elah    2(nd)  =  .  ..(24th         "     ) 

Total =    45  years.     (See  §  25.) 

§  146.  Here  the  reigns  in  Judah  (17+3+25)  just  equal  the  total  45 
years  elapsed,  and  explain  and  establish  the  reigns  in  Israel,  as  each 
reckoning  in  the  terminal  fractions  of  a  reign  as  if  i  whole  year,  (which 
shows  the  custom  then  of  the  Israelite  scribe).  The  Bible  numbers 
can  not  possibly  be  put  together  (without  the  violation  of  any  one  of 
them),  except  thus  to  make  out  45  years;  so  that  there  can  be  no  chance 
for  dispute  about  the  chronology.  The  numbers  given  are  so  numer- 
ous, and  the  datings  and  cross-synchronisms  are  so  carefully  inter- 
woven, as  to  show  that  it  must  have  been  contonporaty  history  given 
by  those  on  the  spot;  while  the  complication  of  the  dating  explains  its 
own  method,  and  rectifies  what  otherwise  might  lead  to  error. 

This  is  only  a  fair  specimen  of  the  whole  history  and  chronology  of 
the  kings  as  given  in  Scripture;  where  it  is  reiterated  and  confirmed 
with  the  same  figures  in  the  books  of  Chronicles,  and  in  Isaiah,  etc., — 


202  PERIOD   E 

giving  us  one  whole  consistent  and  unassailable  chronology.  No 
author,  ancient  or  modern,  has  taken  such  pains  to  explain  carefully 
and  fully  the  datings  of  his  history,  as  have  these  sacred  writers.  And 
their  figures  simply  put  together  and  allowed  to  speak  for  themselves 
(without  change),  give  us  the  most  determinate,  exact,  and  certain 
chronology  that  has  ever  been  found,  or  is  likely  to  be  found,  in  the 
world. 

§  147.  That  we  have  before  us  the  very  facts  and  figures  given  by 
the  writers  of  the  books  of  "  Kings  "  without  any  serious  corruption, 
and  that  they  are  as  genuinely  the  original  text  as  if  transmitted  on  an 
excavated  monument,  is  certain  from  the  same  numbers  given  in  the 
books  of  "  Chronicles,"  and  in  the  prophetic  books,  as  also  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  translation  into  Greek  (B.  C.  200).  It  is  also  known  from  Jose- 
phus,  using  the  same  unchanged  text  and  figures;  as  well  as  other 
Jewish  authors,  and  the  New  Testament  writers,  and  the  Chronicles 
prepared  in  the  later  centuries.  Moreover,  the  scripture  datings  are 
so  blended  and  interwoven  into  one  whole,  by  synchronisms  and  cross- 
reckonings,  that  there  can  be  no  con-uption  of  a  few  figures,  whose 
correction  might  satisfy  the  Assyrian  theorizings.* 

§  148.  The  Bible  Chronology  of  the  Kings  must  stand  or  fall  as  one 
whole;  for  as  we  have  the  text,  it  is  certainly  not  to  any  extent  corrupt, 
but  is  just  what  its  authors  meant  it  to  be.  If  Assyriology  overturns 
it,  that  whole  scripture  history  is  made  to  be  misleading  and  false;  and 
those  who  wrote  it  are  convicted  of  relating  as  history  what  they  knew 
little  about.  On  the  contrary,  the  Bible  dating  carries  on  its  face  the 
evidence  of  its  truthfulness. 

Compare  the  careful  method  of  contemporary  dating  in  scripture 
with  the  mere  stringing  out  of  names  to  represent  years,  reported  to 
us  150  years  after  they  were  passed,  as  seen  in  the  Eponym  Canon; 
and  say  which  is  the  most  reliable  and  sure.  Nothing  in  history  can  be 
more  certain  than  that  the  bible  numbers  put  together  without  mutila- 
tion give  just  254  years  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  from  the  death  of 
Solomon  to  the  capture  of  Samaria  (B.  C.  974  to  720).  The  mere 
string  of  Eponym  names  from  Nineveh,  in  their  meagerness  and  falli- 
bility of  information,  can  never  reduce  this  to  about  210  years,  as  As- 
syriologists  claim. 

§  149.  (III.)— As  to  the  correctness  and  certainty  of  Assyriologists 
in  their  interpretation  of  events  and  their  identification  of  names,  al- 
leged to  be  found  in  the  inscriptions.      It  must  be  conceded  that  there 

*This  is  shown  by  the  sweeping  and  destructive  mutilation  of  script- 
ure made  by  every  recent  scheme  put  forth  attempting  such  a  forced 
agreement  of  the  Bible  with  the  alleged  requirements  of  Assyriology. 
See  the  treatise  of  J.  Schwartz  of  New  York,  in  the  Bib.  Sacra,  for 
Jan.  and  July,  1888;  and  that  of  Dr.  Orr  of  Scotland,  in  the  Pres.  Re- 
view for  Jan.,  1889.     (See  also  my  criticism  of  these  schemes.) 


THE    KINGS  203 

are  great  difficulties  in  the  decipherment  and  exposition  of  excavated 
monuments;  and  that  there  have  been  considerable  differences  of 
opinion  among  the  ablest  scholars  concerning  the  contents  of  inscrip- 
tions found.  How  could  we  expect  certainty  in  understanding  records 
consisting  mostly  of  proper  names,  especially  those  names  which  were 
foreign  to  the  language  of  the  recorder?  Every  one  knows  the  diver- 
sity of  naming  and  of  spelling  names  even  within  a  single  language; 
how  much  greater  the  confusion  when  names  and  terms  are  roughly 
translated  into  a  strange  tongue  by  invading  armies  and  carried  off 
for  mention  in  an  alien  clime. 

We  are  continually  laughing  at  the  mistakes  of  foreign  writers  con- 
cerning names,  times,  and  places  in  our  own  land.  Yet  many  arch- 
aeologists speak  with  the  gr^eatest  confidence  of  identifications  which 
they  think  they  see,  in  the  mention  of  places  and  persons,  three  or  four 
thousand  years  ago,  by  rude  foreign  inscribers  who  knew  little  or  noth- 
ing about  the  localities  or  the  personages  referred  to.  Valuable  hints 
may  often  be  got  from  similarity  of  names  on  ancient  monuments  to 
other  names  we  know  of;  and  sometimes  plausible  theories  may  be 
thence  deduced.  But  there  can  be  little  certainty  in  many  such 
speculations,  where  few  details  and  mostly  mere  names  are  given. 
Scholars,  elated  with  antique  discoveries,  are  apt>  to  speak  with  too 
much  assurance  as  to  their  inferences  therefrom.  We  commend  the 
greater  modesty  and  caution  of  George  Smith,  one  of  the  most 
esteemed  and  trustworthy  Assyriologists,  who  candidly  owns  the  dif- 
ficulties of  identification,  and  sees  no  necessity  of  setting  the  Eponym 
Canon  in  collision  with  Scripture.  * 

^  150.  Those  whom  we  find  speaking  so  confidently  of  the  Script- 
ure chronology  as  quite  set  aside  by  three  or  four  supposed  identifica- 
tions of  Jewish  names  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  far  out  of  their 
sci'ipture  place,  are  by  no  means  so  certain  about  this  as  they  claim  to 
be.  They  are  but  fallible  men  like  the  rest  of  us;  and  their  interpreta- 
tion of  the  facts  may  be  wrong.  In  the  other  chapters  of  this  treatise, 
we  have  fully  examined  those  facts  of  Assyriology;  and  we  think  we 
have  shown,  that  they  give  us  no  assured  evidence  of  untruthfulness 
or  error  in  the  Bible  Chronology. 

Assyriology,  in  its  source  and  its  contents,  carries  far  less  authority 
as  to  assured  accurate  dating,  than  does  the  Jewish  history.  And  the 
same  is  still  more  emphatically  true  of  the  Tyrian  and  Egyptian  an- 
nals; which  are  only  random  items  and  uncertain  lists  picked  out  here 
and  there  from  written  manuscripts,  like  the  Bible,  only  far  less  reli- 


*  "  Professor  Hechler,  in  his  address  before  the  Oriental  Congress 
in  London,  on  '  Assyriology  and  the  Bible,'  asserted  that  the  harmony 
of  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  could  be  established  by  arch- 
aeology."'    {Boston    Watchman ,  Oct.,  'Q2.) 


204  PERIOD   E 

able  than  that.  We  may  rest  assured,  that  the  Jewish  history  will  yet 
long  stand,  as  the  correct  and  trustworthy  history  of  ancient  times.  It 
must  stand,  at  least  until  far  greater  evidence  is  found  in  disproof  of 
it,  then  has  yet  been  brought  forward. 

CHAPTER  I  I. 
Tyrian   History  and  the  Bible. 

§  151.  Does  the  Tyrian  History  contradict  the  Bible  Chronology  of 
•  Solomon's   Temple  as  begtin  in  B.  C.  loi i  ? 

"The  date  of  the  revival  of  Olympic  games  by  Iphitus  is,  accord- 
ing to  Eratosthines  (B.  C.  200)  at  884  B.  C;  according  to  Callimachus 
(B.  C.  250)  at  82S  B.  C;  Mr.  Clinton  prefers  the  latter  date."  "The 
Olympiads  began  to  be  reckoned  from  the  year  776  B.  C,  in  which  year 
Corcebus  was  victor  in  the  foot-race.  We  have  lists  of  the  victors  from 
that  year."     {Anthon's  Class.  Diet.) 

So  then,  the  first  of  the  revived  Olympic  games  was  (828-776^)  52 
years  before  the  first  numbered  Olympiad. 

Now,  Josephus,  using  the  historian  Menander  (B.  C.  300),  speaks  of 
the  building  of  Caiihage  as  143  years  and  8  months  after  the  building 
of  Solomon's  temple  (vs.  Ap.  I.  17,  18.)  He  thus  puts  it,  according  to 
his  Bible  Chronology  (loii,  Antiq.  loio),  at  (loio — 144=)  866  B.  C; 
which  is  jS  years  befo7-e  the  first  Olympic  games  in  828  B.  C. 

Thus  it  seems,  that  the  historian  Menander,  B.  C.  300,  (if  cited 
rightly  by  Josephus)  had  the  7th  year  of  Pygmalion,  king  of  Tyre,  and 
the  flight  of  his  sister  Dido  for  the  building  of  Carthage,  at  the  year 
866  B.  C,  38  years  before  the  first  Olympic  games  of  Iphitus  in  B,  C. 
828. 

i$  152.  But  soon  after,  Timjeus  (B.  C.  260)  expressed  this  as  ""the 
j8th  year  befo>-e  the  first  Olympiad,''  thus  (perhaps  by  mistaking  his 
predecessor  Menander)  speaking  of  the  building  of  Carthage  as  if  52 
years  later,  viz.,  at  (866 — 52=)  814  B.  C,  (i.  e.  776+38.)  Dionysius  of 
Hulicarnassus  (B.  C.  30)  in  citing  Timaeus  says,  he  knows  not  "by 
what  canon  "  he  thus  dates,  as  if  there  was  a  doubt  about  its  correct- 
ness, in  view  of  Menander's  different  "  canon."* 


*That  Tim^us  might  be  mistaking  Menander,  will  appear  from  what 
is  said  by  Anthon:  "The  histoincal  work  of  Timseus  did  not  contain  a 
synchi^onistic  relation  of  events,  but  consisted  rather  of  detached  por- 
tions of  histoiy,  in  each  of  which  the  author  treated  separately  of  some 
important  event.  Cicero  cites  Timaeus.  *  *  *  Polybius,  and  after 
him  Diodorus  Sieulus,  have  charged  Timaeus  with  credulity  and  un- 
fairness. *  *  *  The  ancients  praisedh  is  geographical  knowledge, 
and  his  care  in  indicating  the  chronology  of  the  events  which  he  de- 
scribes. He  appears  also  to  have  composed  another  work  on  the  Olym- 
piads, and  it  is  said  he  was  the  first  historical  writer  that  employed  this 
era."     Hence  any  error  of  his  would  be  largely  copied. 


THE    KINGS  205 

Cicero,  B.  C.  50  (who  cites  from  Timaeus),  puts  the  building  of  Car- 
thage thus  Hke  him  as  being  the  3gth  year  (or  38  years)  before  the  first 
Olympiad,  and  64  or  65  years  before  the  founding  of  Rome.  That  is, 
B.  C.  776+38=814—65=749  B.  C.  for  Rome.  (Or  rather,  B.  C.  753  for 
Rome  according  to  Varro,  who  lived  in  "  closest  intimacy  with  Cicero," 
says  Anthon,  -|-65^8i8 — 28=780  B.  C.  for  beginning  of  the  ist  Olympic 
period — as  said  to  be  reckoned  by  Africanus  and  others.) 

Velleius  (A.  D.  20)  has  this  same  "65  years"  before  Rome,  as  if 
drawn  directly  from  Cicero;  /.  e.,  748  B.  C.  +65=813,  for  the  rise  of 
Carthage,  which  he  says  was  "  668  years  before  its  fall  in  B.  C.  145-6. 
>(Rollin  says  145,  Anthon  146.) 

Long  afterward,  Eusebius  (A  D.  300)  at  his  year  B.  C.  145-6  says: 
"  Carthage  surrenders  to  Scipio,  having  stood  669  [other  reading  668] 
years  ";  which  carries  us  to  the  same  813-14  B.  C.  for  its  founding. 

^  153.  These  five  writers,  Timasus,  cited  by  Dionysius,  Cicero, 
Velleius,  and  Eusebius,  are  the  only  ones  found  giving  B.  C.  814  for  the 
building  of  Carthage.  And  their  statements  all  seem  to  be  derived 
from  the  first  writer  (Timasus),  whom  Dionysius  directly  cites,  and 
who  seems  to  have  wrongly  construed  the  previous  reckoning  of  Me- 
nander  (found  in  Josephus),  the  only  really  Tyrian  annalist,  as  mean- 
ing "38  years  before  the  ist  Olympiad,"  whereas  he  had  it  j8  years 
iefore  the  ist  Olympic  of  Iphetus,  viz.,  at  B.  C.  866  instead  of  814. 

This  52  years'  difference  between  the  two  datings  of  Carthage  has 
■come  down  to  us  from  the  ancients.  And  the  earlier  date  of  Menan- 
■der  is,  to  say  the  least,  as  likely  to  be  true  as  the  later  date;  because 
^ven  by  the  earliest  author  (B.  C.  300),  and  he  the  only  special  annalist 
of  Phoenician  affairs,  giving  specifically  the  lengths  of  reigns  making 
up  the  time,  as  none  of  the  other  writers  do. 

^  154.  Indeed,  no  other  writer  but  Menander  explains  his  date,  as 
that  of  the  flight  of  Dido  from  her  brother  Pygmahon,  king  of  Tyre. 
Menander  (in  Josephus)  makes  this  B.  C.  866  to  be  "the  7th  year"  of 
Pygmalion's  47  years  of  reign.  And  who  can  show  that  this  is  not  the 
date  of  his  reign?  If  those  later  writers  mistook  Menander's  38  years 
before  the  first  Olympic  year  of  Iphitus  (B.  C.  828)  as  meaning  "  38 
years  before  the  first'  Olympiad  "  (B.  C.  776),  this  error  of  52  years 
later  was  merely  disconnecting  the  building  of  Carthage  from  the  flight 
of  Dido;  or  else  it  was  assigning  her  flight  and  the  reign  of  Pygmalion 
to  a  later  date  than  than  that  given  by  Menander's  reigns.  In  either 
case,  the  earlier  writer  Menander  was  most  likely  to  be  correct.  And 
at  any  rate,  his  reckoning  as  52  years  earlier  than  the  other  reckoning 
indicates  plainly  that  the  difference  arose  from  the  different  number- 
ings  of  Olympic  years  (52  years  apart,  from  828  and  from  776  B,  C.) 
So  that,  whichever  is  right  (866  or  814),  there  is  no  necessary  discrep- 
ancy with  the  Bible  Chronology;  which  (by  Josephus)  has  Solomon 
commencing  the  temple  at  (866+Menander's  144=)  loio  B.  C,  or  (814 
+Timceus'  196=)  loio  B.  C.     (See  Restor.  of  Jos.,  J;  51.) 


206  PERIOD    E 

§  155.  Some  attempts  have  been  made,  by  comparison  of  different 
dates  and  writers,  to  make  out  the  B.  C.  866  to  be  impossible  as  Me- 
nander's  reckoning.  Thus,  Aristotle's  statement  that  Utica  was  built 
287  years  before  Carthage,  is  put  with  Pliny's  statement,  that  Utica 
originated  1178  years  ago  (/.  ^.,  from  A.  D.  77  back  to  B.  C.  iioi); frorm 
which  taking  the  287,  we  have  814  not  866  B.  C.  Again:  The  state- 
ment of  Castor  of  Rhodes,  that  there  were  382  years  from  the  Lydians- 
down  to  the  end  of  the  Phoenician  dominion  over  the  sea,  is  put  with 
a  roundabout  calculation  from  other  writers,  of  the  Lydian  kingdom  a& 
beginning  B.  C.  1197;  so  that  1197  (changed  to  1196!) — 382=814  B.  C, 
Once  more:  Justin's  statement,  that  Tyre  was  built  in  the  year  before 
the  destruction  of  Troy,  is  put  with  Josephus'  statement,  that  Tyre 
had  been  built  240  years  when  Solomon  began  his  temple  (Ant.,  8,  iii: 
i);  so  that,  calling  the  destruction  of  Troy  1197  B.  C,  we  have  1198 — 
240=958  B.  C.  for  the  beginning  of  Solomon's  temple;  whence  Menan- 
der's  144  years  carry  us  to  B.  C.  814,  not  866. 

§  156.  But  no  such  mingling  of  one  writer's  date  of  one  event  with 
another  writer's  date  of  another  event,  proves  anything  concerning 
cither's  estimate  of  the  interval  between.  For  instance:  Who  knows- 
that  Pliny  believed  in  Aristotle's  287  years  from  Utica  to  Carthage  ? 
— without  which  he  could  not  believe  in  Carthage  as  built  in  B.  C.  814. 
And  who  knows  that  Josephus  thought  Tyre  was  built  the  year  before 
Troy  fell,  or  in  the  year  1198  B.  C? — without  which  he  could  not  think 
Solomon's  temple  began  in  B.  C.  858.  And  who  knows  that  Justin 
thought  there  were  384  years  between  the  beginning  of  Tyre  and  of 
Carthage? — without  which  he  could  not  think  the  latter  to  be  B.  C, 
814.  A'nd  so  of  every  similar  case.  One  or  the  other  writer  may  be 
mistaken;*  and  the  self -confirming  Bible  Chronology  can  not  thus  be 
overturned. 

§  157.  It  is  by  such  coupling  of  diverse  authors,  that  J.  Schwartz 
tries  to  boast  of  tiucive  ancient  writers  as  testifying  to  B.  C.  814,  in- 
stead of  the  Ji-je  shown  above,  all  derived  from  one  (probably  mis- 
taking) source,  viz.,  Timaeus,  as  we  have  seen.  (Letter,  Nov.  2g,. 
1888.) 

Look  at  the  matter  again.  We  can  not  with  any  assurance  combine 
the  date  given  by  Cicero  and  others  for  the  building  of  Carthage,  with 


(*NoTE. — That  Josephus  himself  may  perhaps  be  mistaken  as  to 
Menander's  amount  of  years,  appears  from  the  fact,  that  he  (Josephus) 
puts  the  founding  of  Solomon's  temple  in  "the  12th  year"  of  King, 
Hiram  of  Tyre;  while  we  know  that  it  was  much  later  than  that  in 
Hiram's  reign.  (See  II  Sam.,  v:  11,  and  I  Ki.  v:  i.)  Moreover,  Hiram's 
reign  as  he  cites  it  fi^om  Menander  is  but  "34  years,"  while  it  requires 
his  whole  life  of  Hiram,  "53  years,"  to  make  out  his  total  dowa 
to  Dido.  This  whole  matter  of  Hiram's  reign  seems  to  be  given 
wrongly.) 


THE    KINGS  207 

the  interval  given  from  Menander  for  the  flight  of  Dido.  How  long 
was  the  building  of  Carthage  after  Dido  quit  Tyre?  Who  knows? 
Menander  makes  her  brother  Pygmalion  still  reign  at  Tyre  41  years 
after  "  his  sister  fled  away  from  him;"  and  she,  after  a  while  getting 
up  an  expedition,  and  subsequently  stopping  with  her  fleet  in  Cyprus, 
may  have  lived  as  long  as  her  brother,  before  in  Africa  she  saw  Car^ 
thage  rebuilt. 

§  158.  We  now  give  a  sure  proof,  that  the  Bible  Chronology  can- 
not, by  any  device,  be  reconciled  with  the  date  814  B.  C.  of  Timaeus 
for  the  building  of  Carthage,  and  at  the  same  time  with  the  144-year 
interval  of  Menander  back  to  the  temple.  This  makes  Solomon's 
temple  to  begin  at  (814-1-144=)  958  B.  C;  and  Schwartz  so  assigns  it. 
But  when  he  and  others  interpret  the  Assyrian  Chronology  in  the 
Eponym  Canon  as  referring  to  Jehu,  king  of  Israel,  the  first  year  of 
Jehu  is  thus  compelled  to  be  no  later  than  B.  C.  841;  leaving  but  (958- 
841=)  117  years  from  the  founding  of  the  temple  to  Jehu.  ■  Now,  script- 
ure makes  the  time  from  Jehu  back  to  the  death  of  Solomon  to  be  91 
years,  and  the  multiplied  interlocking  cross-dates  or  synchronisms 
utterly  forbid  any  shorter  reckoning.  To  which  adding  only  36  of  Solo- 
mon's "40  years  "  back  to  his  "4th  year,"  makes  (91-1-36=)  127  years, 
as  the  shortest  possible  interval  from  Jehu  back  to  the  founding  of  the 
temple,  or  from  841  to  968  B.  C. 

This  latest  possible  date  is  10  years  (or  at  least  9)  earlier  than  the 
958-9  B.  C.  which  Timaeus'  814  -|-  Menander's  144  requires.  So  that, 
to  overcome  the  discrepancy,  Schwartz*  has  to  reduce  Solomon's  "  40 
years"  reign  arbitrarily  by  six  years  !  and  then  to  reduce  the  subse- 
quent interval  to  Jehu  by  3  years  more,  so  as  to  reach  B.  C.  959  (sub- 
stituted for  958), — in  violation  of  numerous  concurring  synchronisms 
and  reign-lengths  of  Scripture  !  Such  mutilation  of  the  Bible  is  not 
harmonizing  it  with  profane  chronology,  as  professed;  but  it  is  treating 
the  inspired  book  as  utterly  inaccurate  in  its  historical  accounts. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Egyptian  History  and  the  Jewish  Kings. 

§  159.  It  is  claimed  that  Egyptian  chronology  puts  the  beginning  of 
Shishak's  reign  (I  Ki.  ii:  40  and  xiv:  25)  as  much  as  40  years  too  late 
to  agree  with  the  scripture  date  of  Solomon's  death  as  B.  C.  974.  We 
proceed  to  show,  that  the  Egyptian  reckoning  is  altogether  uiacertain, 
and  cannot  set  aside  the  Bible  Chronology,  which  is  so  well  assured 
and  indisputable  in  its  data. 


*Theolog.  Monthly,  London,  i88g,  March,  p.   163. 


PERIOD    E 


There  are  tl^ree  sources  of  argument  used  for  the  Egyptian  dating 
claimed,  (i)  The  added  Egyptian  dynasties  of  Manetho.  (2)  Man- 
etho's  mention  of  the  Olympic  era.     (3)     Astronomical  allusions. 

Manetho's  Dynasties. 

§160.  (I.)  The  added  Egyptian  Dynasties  of  Manetho.  George 
Rawlinson,  in  his  History  of  Ancient  Egypt  (Vol.  II,  p.  7)  says: 
"Thus  far  back  (to  'Tirhakah  ',11  Ki.,  xix:  9  )  the  dates  are  as  nearly 
as  possible  certain,  and  accord  with  Scripture.  From  the  date  of  Tir- 
hakah's  accession,  we  are  thrown  almost  entirely  upon  Manetho," — 
who  wrote  his  history  of  Egypt  nearly  500  years  after  Tirhakah. 
Here  let  us  remark,  how  uncertain  is  any  reckoning  that  depends  upon 
Manetho.  His  work  is  lost;  and  we  have  to  rely  altogether  upon  the 
conflicting  accounts  of  it  contained  in  various  authors. 

Says  Anthon  {Class.  Die),  "  Considerable  fragments  are  preserved 
in  the  treatise  of  Josephus  against  Apion;  but  still  greater  portions  in 
chronicles  of  George  Syncellus,  a  monk  of  the  gth  century,  which 
were  principally  compiled  from  the  chronicles  of  Julius  Africanus  and 
from  Eusebius,  both  of  whom  made  great  use  of  Manetho's  history. 
The  work  of  Africanus  is  lost;  and  we  only  possess  a  Latin  version  of 
that  of  Eusebius,  which  was  translated  out  of  the  Armenian  version  at 
Constantinople."  It  will  be  seen  at  once  how  undecisive  must  be  dif- 
fering data  derived  thus  second  and  third  handed  from  \he  original 
historian,  even  supposing  him  to  be  fully  reliable,  which  is  a  matter  in 
question. 

^  161.  The  Encyc.  Brittanica  (newest  edition,  art.  Egypt)  tells  us: 
"  Manetho  gave  a  list  of  30  dynasties  and  the  length  of  each,  with  in 
some  cases  the  duration  of  the  indivual  reigns.  Manetho's  list  is  un- 
happily in  a  very  corrupt  condition."  Schwartz  says:  "Manetho's 
dynasties  have  not  come  down  to  us  in  their  original  form,  but  through 
successive  corruptions,  in  which  each  successive  author  tried  to  accom- 
modate them  to  his  special  '  system  '  of  Biblical  chronology.  It  is 
therefore  necessary,  by  comparing  the  various  versions,  to  restore  the 
original  form  of  the  lists."  Yet  Schwartz  thinks  to  make  out  an  as- 
sured date  for  Shishak  (contrary  to  that  of  the  Bible)  from  data  so  con- 
fused and  corrupted  as  these  !  And  to  make  out  such  an  anti-biblical 
reckoning,  he  entirely  throws  out  one  dynasty,  and  makes  the  dynas- 
ties overlap  each  other;  while  Schwartz  and  Bunsen,  and  other  kin- 
dred critics,  greatly  disagree  as  to  the  manner  and  extent  of  the  over- 
lap.    (See  period  D,  §  102). 

§  162.  Prof.  Lepsius  and  M.  Mariette  are  the  two  Egyptologists 
who  give  a  definite  arrangement  of  the  dynasties  throughout.  (See 
in  Encyc.  Brittan.)  Their  tables  of  dynasty  lengths  agree,  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  igth  dynasty  to  the  beginning  of  the  22d,  total  482  years 


THE    KINGS  209 

(Eusebius  makes  502  or  510.)  M.  Mariette  has  Shishak  beginning  the 
22d  dynasty  B.  C.  980,  Lepsius  961.  This  22nd  dynasty  Lepsius  makes 
174  years,  and  M.  Mariette  makes  it  170  years,  or  ^4  years  more  than 
the  "  116  or  120  years  "  given  by  Africanus.  Bunsen  well  says:  "  It 
is  generally  admitted  that,  according  to  the  monuments,  [we  add  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriptures  also] ,  more  time  must  be  allowed  for  the  en- 
tire reigns  of  the  22nd  dynasty"  than  this  "120  years "  of  Africanus 
seems  to  give.  So  he  arbitrarily  makes  it  148  years  (from  B.  C.  948), 
while  Schwartz  arbitrarily  calls  it  143  years  (from  B.  C.  937). 
Here,  then  we  are  all  afloat,  and  any  assured  ^dXm^  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. Here  are  four  different  lengths  given  for  the  22nd  dynasty  (from 
the  accession  of  Shishak  downwards)  by  as  many  different  writers  of 
Egyptology;  viz.,  143,  148,  170,  174  years  !  How  evidently  uncertain  is 
the  whole  reckoning.  Hence,  our  calculations  of  the  dynasty  as  154  or 
159  years  is  as  likely  to  be  true  as  any  of  the  others. 

§  163.  George  Rawlinson  (Vol.  II.,  p.  7)  tells  us:  "To  the  two 
dynasties  preceding  the  24th,  (viz.  to  the  22d  and  23d  dynasties), 
Manetho  assigned  209  years,  according  to  Africanus  in  Syncellus;  " 
which  makes  the  22d  dynasty  120-I-89  years  for  the  23d,  (or  160+49 
see  §  166).  He  says:  "  The  Saite  dynasty  (the  24th)  consisted  of  but 
one  king,  Bocchoris,  who  reigned  44  years  according  to  the  Manetho  of 
Eusebius  inSyncellus;  "  which,  with  the  death  of  Bocchoris  (at  the  ac- 
cession of  Seveh  or  "So,"  II  Ki.  xvii:  4)  put  as  B.  C.  722,  makes 
"  Shishak  begin  (B.  C.  722  +  44  +  209=)  975  B.  C.,"says  Rawlinson,— 
(adding,  that  the  6  years  only  of  Bocchoris  in  Afric.'s  Manetho  would 
reduce  it  38  years). 

Thus  Rawlinson  finds  Manetho's  dynasties  giving  B.  C.  975  for  the 
beginning  of  Shishak;  while  M.  Mariette  finds  it  B.  C.  980,  i.  e.  5  years 
earlier.  And  the  accession  of  "So  "  was  probably  as  much  as  5  years 
earlier,  in  B.  C.  727,  instead  of  722.  (It  must  be  before  Hoshea's  9 
years  from  B.  C.  729  to  720  had  far  advanced.  See  II  Ki.  xvii:  1-4.) 
Both  these  distinguished  Egyptologists  thus  found  the  dynasties  of 
Manetho  yielding  a  date  for  Shishak  in  harmony  with  Scripture. 

The  Olympic  Era. 

§164.  (II.)  Bunsen  remarks,  that  "  Manetho  states  positively 
that  the  first  Olympiad  was  celebrated  in  Egypt  during  the  40  years' 
reign  of  Petubastes,  the  first  king  of  the  23d  dynasty."  It  must  be 
remembered  that  Manetho  was  writing  more  than  500  years  after  the 
time  spoken  of,  and  might  easily  mistake  as  to  a  date  so  far  away;  so 
that  this  remark,  if  correctly  reported,  and  if  meaning  just  what  is  as- 
cribed to  him,  (which  may  be  doubted),  can  have  no  su»Jh  sure  author- 
ity as  to  overturn  the  assured  dating  of  the  contemporary  Scripture 
history. 


210  PERIOD    E 

Besides,  there  is  something  peculiar  in  the  expression  as  to  cele- 
bratmg  an  "  Olympiad,"  instead  of  holding  Olympic  games,  and  as  to 
this  being  "  in  Egypt,"  rather  than  at  Olympia  in  Greece,  This  sug- 
gests that  the  reference  is  not  to  the  current  Olj'mpic  Era,  776  B.  C, 
but  to  the  beginning  of  the  first  Olmpic  period  of  4  years,  as  ended  not 
begun  (by  Egyptian  estimate)  at  776  B.  C,  /.  c,  as  beginning  B.  C. 
780;  or  even  as  beginning  back  at  B.  C.  828,  when  Iphitus  first  revived 
these  Olympic  games,  according  to  Callimachus,  (endorsed  by  Clinton, 
Fas.  HeL,  vol.  2,  p.  408,  ttote  h.  So  in  Anthon's  Class.  Die,  Art. 
Olympia.     (See  here,  §  151.) 

If  the  Olympic  era  referred  to  means  B.  C.  828,  then  the  22d 
dynasty  may  end  anywhere  from  B.  C.  868  to  828,  and  even  the  120 
years  given  by  Af ricanus  for  the  22d  dynasty  will  carry  us  to  any  point 
from  B.  C.  988  to  948  for  the  beginning  of  Shishak;  which  agrees  with 
the  scripture  dating  of  him,  as  reigning  at  B.  C.  975. 

§  165.  But  if  the  Olympic  era  referred  to  means  B.  C.  780,  as  the 
beginning  of  a  first  Olympic  period  supposed  then  to  begin,  (with  the 
first  Olympiad  cv;^?'/;/^^  in  B.  C.  776,) — this  will  accord  with  Schwartz' 
own  reckoning  of  Olympiads,  by  which  alone  (as  ante-dating  B.  C. 
776)  he  makes  out  his  chronology  of  the  period,  (he  making  Africanus 
have  the  Olympiads  beginning  as  early  as  B.  C.  779).  And  this  will 
also  give  a  scriptural  dating  for  Shishak. 

For,  Manetho's  naming  of  the  celebration  of  a  first  Olympiad  in 
connection  with  the  reign  of  Petubastes'  40  years,  would  be  a  very 
vague  way  of  speaking,  unless  he  meant  that  that  reign  did  not  close  till 
that  date,  or  had  some  such  special  reference.  Therefore,  the  40  years 
are  as  likely  as  any  way  to  begin  at  (B.  C.  780+40=)  820  B.  C.  as  the 
beginning  of  the  23d  dynasty  (instead  of  M.  Mariette's  810,  Bunsen's 
800,  Schwartz'  794,  or  Lepsius'  787.)  Then,  the  120  years  given  by 
Africanus  from  Petubastes  to  Shishak,  which  all  the  critics  enlarge 
one  way  or  another,  is  best  considered  as  having  originally  referred  not 
to  the  beginning  of  Shishak,  but  to  his  end  in  (B.  C.  820+120=)  940 
B.  C.  So  that,  the  reign  of  Shishak  (34  years  in  Syncellus)  is  to  be 
added  to  the  120  years  of  Africanus,  making  154  years  as  the  real  length 
of  the  22d  dynasty  (rather  than  the  143,  148,  170,  174  of  the  various 
authors.)  This  carries  us  to  (B.  C.  940+34=)  974  B.  C.  for  the  begin- 
ning of  Shishak,  the  very  year  of  Solomon's  death  according  to  the 
Scripture  chronology.  It  might  be  the  news  of  a  new  dynasty  in  Egypt 
(inimical  to  Solomon's  father-in-law),  that  led  Jeroboam  to  fiee  to  that 
particular  retreat  just  before  Solomon  died.  (See  I  Ki.  iii:  i,  comp. 
xi:  40.)  * 

*  For  our  reckoning  of  Manetho's  Olympic  reference  as  putting  it 
earlier  than  B.  C.  776,  we  have  the  sanction  of  Schwartz,  as  seen 
above.     For  our  inclusion  of  all  the  40  years  of  Petubustes  in  the  pre- 


THE    KINGS  211 

g  i66.  Suppose  we  understand  Manetho  as  putting  the  end  of  Petu- 
bastes'  40  years  at  the  Olympic  B.  C.  776.  This  carries  the  beginning 
of  that  king  (and  dynasty)  to  B.  C.  816,  and  requires  dynasty  22  to  be 
only  159  years  long  (similar  to  Rawlinson's  value — see  above — ),  in 
order  to  reach  B.  C.  975,  as  a  scriptural  dating  point  for  the  reign  of 
Shishak.  (M.  Mariette  increases  the  159  to  170,  and  Lepsius  to  174 
years.) 

Rawlinson  notes,  that  Manetho  in  Eusebius  has  the  23d  dynasty  but 
44  years,  (like  the  24th);  so  that,  Manetho  has  here  left  out  (89—45=) 
44  years,  and  may  have  offset  (in  Euseb.)  by  adding  40  or  45  to  the  pre- 
vious 22d  dynasty,  making  it  thus  (i 20+40=)  160  years  (as  seen  in  §163), 
or  even  165,  (not  Mariette's  170  or  Lepsius'  174.)  Then,  by  Ma7ietho  in 
Eusebius,  we  have  the  22nd  dynasty  160  years  from  B.  C,  975  to  815  (or 
aven  165  years  from  the  B.  C.  980  of  Mariette),  and  the  23d  dynasty  44 
years  from  B.  C.  815  to  771,  and  the  24th  dynasty  also  44  years  from 
B.  C.  771  to  727,  as  the  death  of  Bochoris  and  the  beginning  of  "So" 
(or  Shabak)  in  the  3d  year  of  Hoshea,  (II  Ki.  xvii:  1-4),  which  last 
<727)  is  a  more  reasonable  date  than  the  722  of  Rawlinson,  (see  §163.) 
And  these  dates,  B.  C.  975  for  the  accession  of  Shishak,  and  B.  C.  815 
for  the  accession  of  Petubastes  are  in  accordance  with  the  requirements 
of  the  case.     (See  §164.     Also,  Period  D,  §115.) 

Thus  to  put  the  beginning  of  Petubastes  (and  the  23d  dynasty)  in 
ihe  neighborhood  of  B.  C.  820,  is  certainly  a  more  reasonable  assign- 
ment than  the  later  dates  given,  (M.  Mariette  810,  Bunsen  800, 
Schwartz  794,  Lepsius  787).    For,  the  next  two  dynasties  (23d  and  24th) 

Olympic  period,  we  have  the  sanction  of  Bunsen,  when  he  says,  that 
with  that  40  and  the  120  of  Africanus  preceding  it  (total  160  years)  reck- 
oned from  his  (Bunsen's)  beginning  of  Shishak's  sole  reign  (as  in  B.  C. 
935),  we  should  have  B.  C.  775;  so  that,  the  year  of  the  ist  Olympiad  in 
B.  C.  776  would  have  fallen  in  the  reign  of  Petubastes.  Then  again, 
for  our  reckoning  of  the  "  120  years  "  of  Africanus  as  reaching  back 
only  to  the  ^';;^/of  Shishak,  we  have  also  the  sanction  of  Bunsen,  when 
he  takes  the  smaller  "116  years  "  of  Africanus,  and  reducing  it  to  114, 
makes  this  reach  back  from  Petubastes  (B.  C.  800)  to  his  end  of 
Shishak  (as  9i4)-|-34=948  B.  C.  for  his  beginning  of  Shishak. 

Thus  we  have  every  step  of  our  reckoning  (B.  C.  780+40+120+34= 
974  B.  C),  endorsed  by  these  critics  themselves;  which  shows  that  this 
our  combination  of  those  values  is  as  likely  as  any  reckoning  to  be 
right.  Our  treatment  of  the  ' '  120  years  "  luithout  alteration  is  certainly 
more  simple  and  rational  than  that  of  Bunsen  in  arbitrarily  reducing  it 
to  114,  or  that  of  Schwartz  in  arbitrarily  increasing  it  to  130  back  to 
Shishak's  invasion,  or  143  to  his  accession. 

(This  notion  of  Schwartz,  that  Africanus  (in  giving  but  21  years  to 
Shishak),  purposely  left  out  13  years  as  being  before  the  invasion,  and 
that  Eusebius  also  (in  giving  Petubastes  but  25  years),  purposely  left 
out  15  years  as  being  before  the  Greek  Olympic  era  reckoned  as  779 
B.  C,  IS  certainly  more  fanciful  than  convincing.) 


2)2  PERIOD    E 

will  rightly  give  us  92  years,  from  B.  C.  820  or  816,  to  B.  C.  728  or  724,, 
as  the  proper  date  of  the  scriptural  "  So  "  beginning  the  25th  dynasty. 

Both  Bunsen  and  Schwartz  give  dynasty  23  as  58  years  (the  same  as- 
Lepsius);  and  Bunsen  puts  dynasty  24  as  34  years;  making  92  years  as 
just  given.  Rawlinson  says  that  Eusebius  has  Manetho's  dynasty  24 
as  44  years,  and  the  23d  also  as  44,  making  the  two  88.  But  he  tells  us 
that  Africanus  gives  Manetho's  22d  and  23d  together  as  209  years,  which 
+Eusebius'  44  for  dynasty  24=253  years,  from  B.  C.  722  (for  "So") 
back  to  B.  C.  975  (for  Shishak.)  So  says  Rawlinson.  And  thus,  Mane- 
tho's dynasties,  when  taken  continuously, — without  one  whole  dynasty 
dropped  out  completely  (as  done  by  the  critics)  under  the  unproved 
assumption  of  contemporary  reigns,  are  found  to  be  in  complete  agree- 
ment with  Scripture. 

g  167.  For  there  (in  II  Ki,  xvii:'i-4)  we  read  of  Hoshea,  who  reigned 
B.  C.  729-720,  as  seeking  alliance  with  "So  (Sabaco),  king  of  Egypt;" 
which  therefore  must  have  been  somewhere  from  B.  C.  728  to  722,  as 
just  now  reckoned.  And  (at  xix:  9)  we  read  of  "  Tirhakah,  king  of 
Ethiopia,"  kinsman  of  Sabaco,  {see  Prideaux,  year  710),  as  coming  to 
attack  the  Assyrian  king  (in  B.  C.  712-708).  Thus  that  25th  dynasty 
began  with  "So"  or  Sabaco  somewhere  before  B.  C.  728  or  722, 
(Usher  has  it  727,  Rawlinson  has  it  722).  "  It  was  then  that  Sabaco, 
king  of  Ethiopia,  having  taken  Bocchoris  (who  constituted  the  24th 
dynasty),  and  burned  him  alive,  set  up  the  new  or  Ethiopic  dynasty, 
the  25th  of  Manetho. "     [Chambers''  Cyc.  Art.  Egypt.)  * 

*  "  After  reigning  8  years,  Sabaco  (or  So)  was  succeeded  by  his  son 
Sevechus,  whom  Heroditus  calls  Sethon."  {Prideaux  yr.  y2o).  Raw- 
linson says  of  "the  synchronism  of  Shabak  (Seveh  or  So)  with 
Hoshea," — "It  is  generally  allowed,  that  the  'So'  or  Sevek  of  II  Ki. 
xvii:  4  represents  Shabak,  in  whose  name  the  k  is  unimportant,  being 
merely  the  suffixed  article.  (See  Brusch)."  Anthon  [Art.  Egypt) 
tells  us:  "  The  (four)  names  inscribed  on  the  monuments  are  Schabak, 
Sevek-otheph,  etc.,  all  of  whom  are  mentioned  either  by  Greek  or 
sacred  historians,  under  the  names  of  Sabacon,  Sevechus,  etc.  No 
more  than  three  of  these  kings  are  mentioned  in  the  list  of  Manetho  as 
belonging  to  this  dynasty,  the  last  being  included  in  that  which  fol- 
lows." 

But  Bunsen  names  the  father  Zeth  or  Sethos,  making  his  reign  (as 
31  yrs.)  an  addition  to  the  23d  dynasty,  with  23  yrs.  of  it  spent  along- 
side of  Bocchoris  of  the  24th  dynasty  (as  contemporary),  and  making 
the  last  8  yrs.  of  it  spent  (seemingly  in  joint  reign)  with  the  son  Sevek 
(as  ending  B.  C.  711).  He  says:  "The  last  king  of  the  23d  dynasty 
was  Zeth,  long  recognized  as  the  Sethos  whom  Heroditus  helps  us  to 
identify  with  the  advance  of  Tirhakah,  B.  C.  711."  M.  Mariette  has 
the  24th  dynasty  only  6  yrs.  (B.  C.  721-715),  and  Lepsius  has  it  but  13 
yrs.  (B.  C.  729-716).  Schwartz  begins  the  26th  dynasty  at  B.  C.  692, 
and  throws  out  entirely  the  25th  dynasty,  as  contemporary  with  the 
24th  and  26th.  It  is  only  by  such  gratuitous  violations  of  Manetho's 
dynasties,  that  the  critics  try  to  make  out  their  later  dating  of  Shishak. 
How  unreliable  such  chronology! 


the  kings  213 

Astronomical  Allusions. 

^i68.  (III.)  Schwartz  (Letter,  Oct.  29,  1888)  says:  "  Shishak  34 
years  from  B.  C.  937  to  903,  then  Osorkon  I  for  19  years  to  B.  C,  884, 
then  Tukelut  I;  his  15th  year=87o  B.  C,  in  which  an  echpse  of  the 
moon  is  recorded,  as  occurring  on  the  25th  of  the  month  Mesori;  and 
the  only  ecHpse  visible  in  Egypt  during  that  9th  century  B.  C.  that 
fell  on  the  25th  Mesori  was  in  B.  C.  870,"  But  what  if  the  eclipse 
occurred  (say)  forty  years  earlier,  in  the  previous  century?  In  40 
years,  25  Mesori  would  range  through  10  days  of  the  Julian  year 
during  which  it  would  be  very  remarkable  for  no  eclipse  of  the  moon  to 
occur, — since  evety  lunar  eclipse  is  visible  in  all  places.  Besides,  we 
have  no  assurance,  that  the  reigns  were  only  67  years  from  this 
eclipse  back  to  I  Shishak,  as  Schwartz  here  makes  them.  So  that, 
there  is  no  certainty  about  this  astronomical  argument. 

?;  169.  Again  Schwartz  says:  "  My  researches  place  the  ist  yr.  of 
Tukelut  II  in  B.  C.  852  (or  32  years  after  Tukelut  I  began);  so  that  his 
nth  year  would  be  B.  C.  842; — in  which  year  we  are  told  that  the 
rising  of  Sothis  heliacally  was  on  the  ist  of  the  month  Tybi;  and 
that  ist  Tybi  fell  on  July  20  (the  Sothiacal  date)  only  in  B.  C.  845-2." 
But,  though  July  20  was  the  Sothiacal  date  in  the  time  of  Censorinus, 
(A.  D.  238),  it  was  not  so  in  B.  C.  842.  Besides,  Mr.  Schwartz' 
"researches"  may  be  misleading;  and  we  have  no  assurance  that  the 
reigns  were  only  85  years  from  the  ist  Tukelut  II  back  to  the  ist 
Shishak,  as  Schwartz  here  makes  them.  There  may  have  been  123 
years  or  more  back  to  B.  C.  975  or  earlier,  as  the  researches  of  others 
indicate.  So  that,  there  is  no  certainty  about  thisastronomical  argument. 

g  170.  On  the  whole,  our  calculation  of  Shishak  (from  Manetho)  as 
beginning  the  22nd  dynasty  in  B.  C.  975  or  4,  the  year  before  Solomon's 
death,  in  conformity  with  Scripture  reckoning,  is  as  reasonable  as  any 
of  the  theories  devised  by  the  critics.  At  the  same  time,  the  entire  dis- 
cussion shows,  how  very  uncertain  are  all  those  outside  historical  reckon- 
ings, compared  with  the  full,  duplicated,  harmonious  Bible  chronology. 

The  result  of  all  is,  that  the  Egyptian  chronology  plainly  can 
give  us  no  assured  dating  to  compete  with  Bible  chronology,  or  to  set  it 
aside  as  incorrect.  And  it  is  just  so  with  the  Tyrian  and  the  Assyrian 
data.  All  these  pagan  reckonings  are  vague  and  uncertain,  as  com- 
pared with  the  Hebrew  records,  which  we  have  shown  to  be  very  exact 
and  evidently  prepared  upon  the  spot  with  careful  effort  to  measure  the 
time. 

The  best  that  these  outside  figurings  can  do,  is  to  show,  that  //"Script- 
ure itself  should  be  found  to  require  a  later  dating  of  Shishak  and  Sol- 
omon, the  pagan  reckonings  could  be  made  to  conform  thereto.  But 
with  the  Bible  chronology  as  it  stands,  there  is  nothing  outside 
that  can  prove  it  untrue. 

[The  reply  to  Schwartz  Review  is  left  in  MSS.J 


PERIOD  D.^THE  JUDGES. 

PART  I. 

From  the  Exodus  to  Solomon's  Temple. 

CHAPTER  I. 
The  Interval  of  the  580  Years. 

§  I.  The  dates  and  the  length  of  time  from  the  exodus  to  David,  are 
very  distinctly  and  unmistakably  given  us  by  Paul,  in  his  speech  at 
Antioch,  Acts  xiii:  17-22;  making,  to  Solomon's  Temple,  as  follows: 

Moses,  in  the  wilderness,        40  years.  Acts  xiii:  18. 
Joshua,  until  the  allotment,     7      "  "       "     19* 

Judges,  to  and  with  Samuel,  450      "  "       "     2ot 

Saul,  the  first  king,  40      "  "       "21 

David,  the  man  of  God,  40      "       II  Sam.  v:  4 

Solomon,  until  the  Temple,      3      "II  Chron.  iii:  2 

Total,  580  years. 

This  period  of  580  years,  therefore,  is  most  clearly  and  decisively 
the  true  Scripture  interval  from  the  Exodus  out  of  Egypt  to  the 
founding  of  Solomon's  Temple.  In  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  the  date  of  the  temple 
is  given  as  "in  the  480th  year";  where  the  4  (instead  of  5)  is  evi- 
dently a  mistake  of  copyists,  which  was  not  misleading  Paul,  as  it  is 
misleading  many  in  our  day. 

There  are  known  to  be  two  or  three  instances  (at  the  least)  in  the 
Old  Testament  of  the  miscopying  of  a  single  figure;  and  it  is  wonder- 
ful that  there  are  no  more.  One  of  the  cases  is  at  II  Chron.,  xxxvi:  9, 
"  Jehoiachin  was  eight  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign;"  which  is 
corrected  by  II  Ki.,  xxiv:  8,   "  Jehoaichin  was  eighteen  years  old  when 

*  "  Destroyed  seven  nations  "  is  eq_uivalent  to  "gained  possession  in 
seven  years."  The  allotment  began  m  the  47th  year,  /.  ^.,  ^6)4  years 
from  the  Exodus;  as  we  learn  from  Josh.,  xiv:  i,  2,  7,  10,  comp.  with 
Num.,  x:  11,  and  xiii:  25. 

f  As  to  the  revised  reading  of  this  text  see  §  27. 


THE   JUDGES  215 

he  began  to  reign."  So,  the  "480th  year"  of  I  Ki.,  vi:  i  is  corrected 
by  the  enumeration  of  Paul  in  Acts  13th.  We  may  perhaps  fairly  as- 
sume, that  God  has  not  suffered  any  copyist's  error  of  this  sort  to 
creep  into  His  Word  without  some  means  of  correcting  it,  as  in  these 
cases. 

The  "450  Years." 

§  2.  The  precise  agreement  of  Paul's  enumeration  with  the  num- 
ber given  in  I  Ki.,  vi:  i,  as  thus  set  right,  is  proof  that  his  value 
"about  450  years"  is  the  true  interval  from  the  allotment  of  Canaan 
to  the  beginning  of  the  kingdom  under  Saul.  And  this  is  the  exact 
amount  found  by  adding  up  the  several  lengths  of  time  given  in  the 
book  of  Judges,  with  40  years  added  from  the  first-named  oppression 
of  "  Chushan-rishathaim  8  years  "  (Ju.,  iii:  8),  back  to  Joshua's  allot- 
ment of  the  land. 

The  book  of  Judges  plainly  intends  to  give  a  continuous  history, 
with  its  successive  numbers  showing  the  whole  length  of  time  occu- 
pied. The  honest  way,  therefore,  is  to  add  up  all  its  numbers  as  giv- 
ing the  period  that  it  covers,  leaving  the  subsequent  books  (of  Ruth 
and  Samuel)  to  begin  back  upon  the  same  period,  if  they  so  appear. 
Treated  in  this  fair  manner,  the  book  of  Judges  adds  up  just  410  years; 
and  the  "  about  450  years  "  of  Paul  for  possession  of  the  land  and  for 
"judges,"  evidently  means  to  cover  the  book  of  Judges,  with  a  ter- 
minal 40  years  for  the  events  at  its  beginning  and  close. 

This  mode  of  adding  up  the  450  years  made  the  judges  to  end  with 
the  book  of  Judges,  viz.,  with  Samson's  20  years  at  chap,  xvi:  31, 
where  the  book  properly  ends.  For,  the  last  five  chapters  of  Judges 
are  an  Appendix,  belonging  chronologically  to  the  anarchy  that  pre- 
vailed in  the  time  of  the  first  two  chapters,  until  Othniel,  the  first  of 
the  Judges  (iii:  9).  "  In  those  days  there  was  no  king  (or  judge)  in 
Israel;  every  man  did  that?  which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes."  (Ju., 
xvii:  6,  and  xviii:  i,  and  xix:  i,  and  xxi:  25.)  It  is  in  this  order  that  Jo- 
sephus  gives  the  history  (Antiq.,  5,  ii)  and  all  expositors  are  agreed  in 
this  arrangement.* 

^  3.  Moreover,  the  following  book  of  Ruth,  and  the  first  chapters 
of  I  Sam.  are  cotemporary  history,  dating  back  into  the  time  of  the 
book  of  Judges,  as  is  now  generally  agreed.  Samson's  dying  slaughter 
of  the  Philistines,  with  which  the  order  of  history  in  Judges  ends 
(with  chap,  xvi),  so  emboldened  God's  people,  that   "Israel  went  out 

*We  must  add,  by  way  of  postscript,  that  in  the  Bib.  Sacra  (Oct., 
i8gx,  p.  660,  661),  appears  a  treatment  of  this  Appendix  to  Judges  as  if 
belonging  there  chronologically.  It  is  one  of^  the  most  astounding 
oversights  by  professed  bible  scholarship  that  we  have  ever  seen  com- 
mitted in  so  high  a  quarter. 


216  PERIOD    D 

against  the  Philistines  to  battle  ";  which  battle  resulted  in  Eli's  death, 
as  narrated  in  I  Sam.,  iv:  1-18.  So  that  Eli's  40  years  of  judging 
(ver.  18)  had  counted  backwards  over  Samson's  20,  and  beyond,  cover- 
ing the  last  20  of  the  Philistine  invasion  (Ju.,  xiii:  i).  Eli  ruled  at 
Shiloh  where  the  ark  abode;  and  Samson  ruled  at  the  same  time  in  the 
more  southern  or  Philistine  country.  This  is  the  reckoning  as  still 
given  in  our  common  chronologies  (from  Usher);  that  of  Scott's  bible, 
for  instance,  which  describes  it  as  the  reckoning  of  "some  learned 
men.  (Note. — The  Septuagint  has  Eli  ruling  but  20 years,  i.  e.,  the 
same  20  as  Samson,  following  the  Philistine  40  years.) 

But  to  reckon  the  well-understood  "450  years"  of  the  judges  as 
thus  beginning  at  Joshua's  apportionment  of  the  land,  would  not  agree 
with  the  fact  that  the  Jits f  Judge,  Othniel,  did  not  begin  till  long  after 
that  (Ju.  iii:  9);  so  that,  some  were  led  to  substitute  (for  this  40-year 
interval  at  the  beginning)  the  40  years  of  Eli  as  if  additional  at  the 
end.  So  Eusebius  gives  it.  Still,  this  left  no  time  for  Samuel  as  one 
of  the  judges;  concerning  whom  Josephus  tells  us  (Antiq.  6,  xiii:  5): 
"  He  governed  and  presided  over  the  people  alone,  after  the  death  of 
,Eli  the  high-priest,  twelve  years,  and  eighteen  years  together  with 
Saul  the  king."  These  12  years  given  to  Samuel  as  judge,  allowed  but 
28  of  the  40  to  go  back  before  the  judges,  to  reach  Joshua's  allotment  of 
the  land. 

§  4,  And  Josephus,  accordingly,  reckons  it  just  this  way.  For  he 
says  (Ant.  5,  i:  29),  "Joshua  became  Israel's  commander  after  Moses' 
death  twenty-five  years;  "  that  is,  18  more  after  the  7  years  at  the 
allotment  of  the  land.*  (So  Julius  Africanus,  A.  D.  221,  also  puts  it.) 
And  then  Josephus  adds  (6,  v:  4),  "In  the  days  of  Moses  and  his  dis- 
ciple, Joshua,  who  was  their  general,  they  continued  an  aristocracy; 
but  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  for  18  years  in  all,  the  multitude  had 
no  settled  form  of  government,  but  were  in  an  anarchy  [as  also  says 
Ju.  xvii:  6,  etc.] ;  after  which  they  returned  to  their  former  government, 
they  then  permitting  themselves  to  be  judged  by  him  who  appeared  to 
be  the  best  warrior,  and  most  courageous;  whence  it  was,  that  they 
called  this  interval  of  their  government  '  the  judges.'  " 

These  "  18  years  "  of  "  anarchy,"  therefore,  reach  to  the  first  judge 
Othneil  (iii:  9),  including  the  8  years  subjection  to  Chushan  (ver.  8), 
with  10  years  before;  which  10,  with  the  18  years  of  Joshua  after  the 
allotment,  amount  to  28  years  here  at  the  beginning,  with  the  12  of 
Samuel  at  the  close,  making  up  40  of  the  450-year  period.  Thus  this 
period,  according  to  the  Bible  and  Josephus,  is  constituted  as  follows: 


*  Eusebius  gives  Joshua  27;  and  he  wrongly  treats  this  whole  reign 
of  Joshua  (instead  of  his  first  7  years),  as  excluded  from  the  "450  years 
of  Acts  xiii:  20;  and  he  thus  increases  Paul's  total,  580  from  the  Exodus, 
up  to  the  600  years  which  he  attributes  to  Paul. 


THE   JUDGES 


217 


§  5.     Period  of  the  Judges. 


Joshua 18  more 

Anarchy  ....    10 

Chushan 8 

Othniel 40 

Eglon 18 

Ehud 80 

Jabin 20 

Barak 40  (&  Deb.) 

Midiaii 7  [     ] 

Gideon 40 

Abimelech...     3 

Tola 23  (22)  [     ] 

J  air 22 


("300 years") 329  ["over 300."] 
Ammonites  . .    18 

8.  Jephthah  ....     6 

9.  Ibsan 7 

10.  Elon 10 

11.  Abdon 8  [     ] 

PhiHstines. . .  40  EH  20 


13.  Samson. 

14.  Samuel. 


,20  Eli  20 


'I- 


Josephus 
Judges, 

5-  i:  29 
6,  v:  4. 
3:8. 

n 

14. 
30- 
4:  3- 
5:  31- 
6:  I. 
7:28. 
9:22. 
10:  2. 

>i 

3- 

3     , 
^ 

11:  26. 
10:8. 

12:  7. 
9- 

14. 
13:  I. 

•^ 

Josephus 

15:  20. 
6,  xiii: 

Acts, 


Total. 450*  Acts,  13: 

These  Scripture  numbers  are  all  given  just  the  same  by  Josephus, 
except  the  three  marked  [  ],  which  are  not  clearly  stated  by  him,  (Tola 
not  being  mentioned  at  all),  though  his  aggregate  requires  all  but 
Abdon.  This  shows  that  our  Hebrew  bible  is  uncorrupted  and  just  as 
he  had  it  (in  the  main),  and  that  his  view  of  the  whole  interval  was 
about  the  same  as  that  of  Paul,  living  at  about  the  same  period.  The 
reckoning  agrees  with  the  round  number  "300  years  "  mentioned  in  the 
book  of  Judges  (xi:  26)  and  in  Josephus  (5,  vii:  g),  as  seen  above. 

§  6.  Thus  evident  is  it,  that  we  have  here  the  true  Bible  reckoning. 
Every  number  is  given  in  the  Scripture  itself,  except  the  length  of 
Samuel's  separate  rule  (12  as  part  of  the  "20"  at  I  Sam.  vii:  2),  and 
the  gap  after  Joshua's  allotment.     And  these  two  points  (at  beginning 


*Josephus'  reckoning,  with  i  year  given  to  Shamgar  (Ant.  5,  iv:  3;  Ju. 
iii:3i),  will  give  the  total  as  451,  (i.  e.,  "  rt/^^w/ 450  years,"  as  Paul  says); 
and  this  Josephus  offsets  by  only  2  (not  3)  years  given  to  Solomon, — 
the  40th  year  of  David  being  dropped  as  a  year  of  joint  reign  with  Sol- 
omon. This  makes  Josephus  have  David  begin  B.  C.  1053,  instead  of 
the  B.  C.  1054  of  our  reckoning  here.  The  reader  may  decide  which  is 
right.  Clement  Alex,  interprets  Paul's  "about  450"  (like  Josephus)  as 
451,  but  with  Josephus'  extra  12  put  into  it,  making  it  "463."  (See 
Restor.  of  Jos.  ^  92.)     See  Appendix  A,  here,  J5  41, 


218  PERIOD   D 

and  end  of  the  450  years  period)  are  very  clearly  established  by  Jose-, 
phus;  while  their  amount  and  the  total  interval  are  decisively  fixed  by 
the  figures  of  Paul. 

But  it  is  around  these  two  points  that  the  chief  divergences  of  opin- 
ion and  variations  of  reckoning  have  arisen.  By  adding  Eli's  40  years 
(with  or  without  Saul  reduced  20  years),  one  and  another  of  the  Jew- 
ish teachers  and  early  Christian  fathers,  got  the  interval  from  the  Ex- 
odus to  the  Temple  as  600  or  620  years  (mstead  of  Paul's  580).  Jose- 
phus,  reckoning  the  full  (Philistine  40-}-  Samson  20 -|-  Eli  40=)  100 
before  Samuel,  instead  of  the  right  60,— and  then  reducing  Saul's  40  to 
20, — made  out  20  too  many,  or  a  total  of  600  (as  given  in  Eusebius). 

But  for  a  reason  which  we  elsewhere  explain  (see  here,  ^69),  Jose- 
phus  reduced  the  600  to  592,  by  letting  the  8  of  Abdon  overlap  (not 
naming  it  in  his  account).  Subsequently,  Theophilus  (A.  D.  171)  got 
the  interval  to  612,  so  using  the  612  of  Jos.'  Priest-Record  as  if  ending 
at  the  4th  of  Solomon.  (The  Paschal  Chronicle  gets  in  20  more,  making 
632.)  Clement  Alex,  increased  the  "450  years  "  of  Paul  by  13  years  up 
to  "463";  and  he  had  the  592  to  the  temple,  though  sometimes  calling 
it  573  and  566  (which  last  number  Eusebius  cites  as  "  fi^om  the  Syrian 
Records").  See  Jackson.  All  these  values  are  derived  fi^om  a  «&j 
years'  reckoning  originally  understood,  but  not  expressed  in  I  Ki.  vi:  i. 

The  Exodus  Date. 

§  7.  In  Period  E,  §  5,  we  have  shown,  that  Solomon  began  the  tem- 
ple in  the  4th  year  of  his  40  years'  reign,  B.  C.  ion,  i.  e.,  3  years  from 
his  coronation  or  from  his  father's  death.  (See  here,  §  41.)  With  our 
interval  of  580  years  back  from  this  point,  we  reach  (ion  +  58^^)  1591 
B.  C.  as  the  date  of  the  Exodus.  But  with  "the  480th  year"  of  I  Ki. 
vi:  I,  we  reach  only  (ion  +479  =)  1490  B.  C,  not  Usher's  1491,  as  the 
Exodus  date. 

No  early  writer  gives  any  such  smaller  reckoning  as  ' '  the  480th  year, " 
until  it  is  set  forth  by  Eusebius  (A.  D.  325).  In  agreement  with  many 
able  scholars,  we  judge  that  this  480  must  be  a  corruption  of  the  text, 
that  crept  in  not  very  long  before  Eusebius'  day.  (This  is  fully  dis- 
cussed here,  in  Part  II,  §58.)  We  here  proceed  with  the  proof,  that 
580  (not  480)  is  the  correct  Scriptural  number. 

Sabbatic  Confirmation. 

§  8.  The  580  years  reckoning  gathered  from  Paul  and  the  Judges, 
is  shown  to  be  right  by  the  Sabbaticand  Jubilee  reckoning  of  the  Jews, 
Josephus  instructs  us  (Autiq.  14,  xvi:  2),  that  a  Sabbatic  year  ended  at 
Herod's  conquest  of  Jerusalem,  in  the  autumn  of  B.  C.  37  (as  well  as 
B.  C.  163,  etc.), — with  Jubilee  Sabbatic  ending  in  B.  C.  23.  So  that  it 
was  a  Jubilee  at  A.  D,  27,  when  Christ  spake  as  in  Luke,  iv:  19;  and 


THE    JUDGES  219 

just  21  Jubilee  periods  before,  in  B.  C.  1003,  Solomon's  temple  was 
dedicated  (I  Ki.  viii:  63,  65),  at  a  Jubilee  as  is  generally  agreed.  And  12 
Jubilee  periods,  or  588  years  before,  carry  us  to  B.  C.  1591  as  the  Ex- 
odus date,  580  years  before  the  founding  of  the  temple  in  B.  C.  loii. 
So  that,  by  this  reckoning,  the  starting  point  of  Jubilees  was  at  the  Ex- 
odus, where  it  should  be,  at  the  grand  epoch  of  Jubilee  deliverance. 
(See  Period  E,  §49,  etc.) 

Hence  the  first  Jubilee  period  of  49  years  ended  at  9  years  of  Joshua 
(viz.,  at  Josh,  xxii:  1-34),  when,  the  land  being  conquered  and  divided 
by  lot,  the  zYz  tribes  were  sent  away,  and  all  settled  down  to  their 
home  cultivation  of  the  country.  Not  until  then  could  they  begin  to 
count  their  six  years  of  established  land-culture,  followed  by  a  7th 
"Sabbatic  year,"  as  required.  (Lev.  xxv:  3.)  They  could  have  no 
Sabbatic  till  six  years  of  orderly  tillage;  and  no  such  orderly  tillage 
was  there  in  the  turmoil  of  war. 

Jj  g.  In  the  first  seven  years  Joshua  "destroyed  seven  nations" 
(Acts  xiii:  19),  finishing  the  chief  conquest  of  the  land,  and  beginning 
its  allottment,  as  at  Josh,  xii-xv.  But  after  a  few  tribes  had  received  a 
temporary  apportionment,  there  was  a  suspension  of  the  work,  and 
considerable  delay  in  thoi'oughly  surveying  and  more  equitably  allotting 
the  land,  (Josh,  xviii:  2,  7,  etc.);  until  cities  of  refuge  were  assigned, 
and  cities  for  the  Levites  (ch.  xx,  xxi).  And  after  that,  when  (in  ch. 
xxii)  the  ^Yz  tribes  had  been  sent  away  over  Jordan,  and,  the  army  be- 
ing disbanded,  all  were  settled  in  their  homes, — then  at  length,  after  9 
years  in  Canaan,  the  nation  felt  that  their  Jubilee  of  finished  exodus  and 
inheritance  had  come;  and  that,  in  beginning  now  their  peaceful  home 
tillage,  and  no  longer  living  as  they  had  on  the  spoils  of  war,  they  must 
count  first  six  years  of  husbandry  and  then  a  Sabbatic  year  of  rest,  ac- 
cording to  command. 

Is  not  this  a  more  reasonable  view  of  the  begun  Sabbatics  (at  9  years 
of  Joshua  or  49  from  the  Exodus),  than  the  view  maintained  by  some 
(the  Usher  Chronology,  for  instance), — that  the  Israelites  held  their  first 
Sabbatic  year,  and  let  the  land  rest,  as  soon  as  they  had  been  there  6 
or  7  years  only,  fighting  all  the  while  and  gathered  in  battle  array, 
away  from  any  settled  homes  ?  Would  they,  or  could  they,  observe  a 
Sabbatic  year  with  no  non- Sabbatic  or  cultivation  years  before  it,  and 
with  no  reference  to  a  49  year  Jubilee  interval  preceding  it?  This 
Usher  reckoning  makes  the  Jubilees  all  date  as  from  2  or  3  years  before 
the  Exodus,  instead  of  all  pointing  back  (as  they  should)  to  that  great 
honored  epoch  of  Jubilee  freedom  to  the  Jews.  We  feel  assured,  that 
we  rightly  reckon  the  Jubilees  from  the  Exodus  date,  as  the  Modern 
Jewish  Chronology  does.     (See  Period  E,  ^  57-59.) 


220  PERIOD    D 


The  "14  Generations." 

§  10.  The  same  appears  more  certain  from  the  Jewish  reckoning  of 
generations,  as  given  in  Mat.  i:  17.  For  convenience  and  symmetry  they 
made  summaries  of  generations  conformable  to  the  Jubilee  periods. 
From  Abraham  to  David  they  reckoned  70  years  to  a  generation,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  teaching  (of  Moses?)  in  Psm.  xc:  10.*  So  that,  the 
deliverance  from  Egypt  in  215  years  from  the  arrival  of  Jacob  there 
was  said  to  be  "in  the  fourth  generation"  (Gen.  xv:  16),  i.  e.,  afterj 
times  yo  or  210  years. 

And  names  were,  taken  (of  distinguished  successors)  to  conform  to 
this  number  of  generations:  as  at  Ex.  vi:  16-20,  Levi,  Kohath,  Amram, 
Moses.  So  at  Mat.  i:  3,  Judah,  Phares,  Esrom,  Aram,  four  names  (after 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and"  Jacob)  finishing  the  first  seven  generations  of  70 
times  7=490  years  in  all.  As  many  more  added,  or  980  years  in  all, 
make  20  Jubilee  periods,  or  twice  "  seventy  weeks  "  of  years,  or  the 
"fourteen  generations,"  reaching  from  B.  C.  1983,  the  Jubilee  year,  or 
year  following  the  offering  of  Isaac  (at  12  years  of  age  in  1984)  down  to 
B.  C.  1003,  the  Jubilee  year  of  temple  dedication,  following  the  year 
of  finished  temple  sacrifice  (on  the  same  Mt,  Moriah,  in  1004.)  This 
was  about  980  years  from  Isaac's  birth  to  Solomon's  accession;  that  is, 
14  gene?-atiofis  {of  yo  years)  from  the  call  of  Abraham  to  the  reign  of 
David. 

§  II.  Thus  was  the  generation  reckoning  of  the  Jews  conformed  to 
their  favorite  Jubilee  periods,  especially  to  those  two  celebrated  Jubi- 
lees of  sacrifice  on  the  mount,  B.  C.  1003  and  1983,  just  20  Jubilee 
periods  apart.     And  this  generation  reckoning  gives 

7  years  for  building  the  temple. 
580  years  back  to  the  Exodus. 

430  years  back  to  Abraham's  arrival,  (see  period  C.) 
— 37  years  to  the  offering  of  Isaac. 


980  years=i4  generations. 


*From  David  downward,  the  Jews  halved  the  reckoning  to  an  average 
duration  of  35  years  for  a  generation  of  people,  instead  of  70  years  for 
individual  life;  having  now  10  (instead  of  20)  Jubilee  periods,  viz,  490 
years  to  14  generations.  So  that,  the  second  "14  generations"  in 
Matthew  reach  from  the  temple  Jubilee  B.  C.  1003  to  the  second  temple 
Jubilee  B.  C.  513  (or  about  490  years  from  the  accession  of  David,  to 
the  death  of  the  last  king,  in  "the  carrying  away  into  Babylon,"  Jer. 
lii:  31).  And  the  third  "14  generations"  reach  490  years  from  the 
second  temple  Jubilee  B.  C.  513  to  the  Jubilee  of  Herod.  B.  C.  23;  or 
(roughly)  from  the  generation  containing  the  former  date  to  the  genera- 
tion (of  35  years)  containing  the  later  date  and  the  birth  of  Christ.  (In 
the  Bib.  Sacra,  1888,  p.  452-463,  is  a  most  complex,  artificial,  and  un- 
satisfactory theory  of  these  "generations.") 


THE    KINGS  221 


The  Passover  Sabbath. 


§  12.  We  have  found  confirmation  of  our  580  years  reckoning  in  the 
Jubilee  and  Sabbatic  years  of  the  Jews.  We  shall  nOw  find  similar  con- 
firmation in  the  Passover  Sabbath.  In  connection  with  the  passover, 
"  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath  "  was  a  notable  day,  the  day  of  "  first 
fruits."  (Lev.  xxiii:  11,  15,  16.)  Some  think  "the  sabbath"  here 
means  the  15th  Nisan,  the  first  of  the  seven  days  feast  of  unleavened 
bread;  so  that  the  first-fruit  offering  would  always  be  on  the  i6th  Nisaa. 
But  we  have  shown  conclusively,  (N.  T.  Appendix  A,  §  58),  that  "the 
sabbath  "  here  means  the  weekly  sabbath  coming  on  any  day  of  the 
paschal  feast,  from  the  14th  to  the  20th  Nisan  inclusive;  so  that,  the 
first-fruit  offering  came  on  any  day  of  the  seven  days  feast,  from 
the  15th  to  the  21st  Nisan  inclusive. 

The  first  occurrence  of  the  first-fruit  offering,  on  entering  Canaan, 
is  recorded  in  Josh,  v:  10,  11;  where  we  learn,  that  the  eating,  and 
nesessarily  the  offering,  of  first-fruits  was  ^' on  the  mtn-row  after  the 
passover'';  which  we  are  expressly  told  (in  Num.  xxxiii:  3)  means  "on 
the  15th  day  of  the  first  month  "  Nisan.  We  thus  learn  unmistakably, 
that  "the  morrow  after  the  sabbath"  being  then  on  the  15th  Nisan, 
that  weekly  sabbath  was  on  "  the  14th  of  Nisan  at  even  "  when  the  pass- 
over  was  observed.  And  we  thus  have  the  concurrence  of  a  fixed  date 
(the  Saturday  sabbath)  with  an  astronomically  assignable  date  (the  14th 
day  of  a  lunar  month.)     See  period  G,  JJ  58. 

§  13.  This  is  the  same  concurrence,  by  means  of  which  we  have 
astronomically  demonstrated  the  Date  of  Christ's  Death;  and  by  this 
same  means  we  may  now  determine  the  correctness  of  our  date  assigned 
for  the  Exodus,  viz.,  B.  C.  1591.  For,  we  here  demonstrate,  that  just 
40  years  after  our  Exodus  date,  viz.,  in  1551  B.  C,  the  14th  of  Nisan 
ended  (as  it  should)  at  sunset  on  Saturday,  April  16  (O.  S.), — just  as 
required  by  Josh,  v:  10,  11,  and  Num.  xxxiii:  3.* 

Then,  just  40  years  before  this,  the  original  passover  of  the  Exodus 
occurred,  at  sunset  of  Thursday,  April  8,  B.  C.  1591;  and  Friday  was 
the  15th  Nisan  (or  Abib),  when  the  Israelites  left  Egypt  (Num.  xxxiii: 
3).  So  that,  adding  29  days,  "the  15th  day  of  the  second  month  "  was 
on  Saturday,  when  they  came  unto  the  wilderness  of  Sin  (Ex.  xvi:  i). 
Then,  after  6  days  of  gathering  manna,  there  followed  the  Saturday 

*By  the  same  process  we  learn,  that  in  B.  C.  1451,  the  14th  of  Nisan 
ended  on  Tuesday,  April  20;  but  in  B.  C.  1450,  it  ended  on  Saturday, 
April  9.  So  that,  the  (1451+40=)  1493  B.  C.  (of  Usher)  will  not  answer; 
though  the  1450+40=)  1490  B.  C.  would  do,  so  far  as  Joshua's  passover 
is  concerned,  but  the  week-day  of  the  Exodus  and  of  the  arrival  at  Sin 
would  not  harmonize  as  above.  (For  the  whole  astronomical  process, 
see  Appendix  B,  i^  44), 


222  PERIOD    D 

"Sabbath"  (ver,  5,  22-26).  Here  we  have  a  most  wonderful  concur- 
rence of  dates,  astronomically  fixed,  such  as  could  hardly  thus  combine 
harmoniously  with  Scripture  in  any  other  Exodus  assignment.  B.  C, 
1591  seems  to  be  pfoved  as  the  year. 

The  view  we  here  present,  that  the  original  reckoning  at  I  Ki.  vi:  i 
was  580  years,  and  that  there  was  no  "  480th  "  in  the  original  text,  was 
ably  argued  by  the  learned  John  Jackson,  in  his  Chron.  Antiq.  (Lon- 
don, 1752,  3  vol.  folio).  And  it  was  also  defended  in  Elliott's  Chron- 
ology, and  elewhere;  (though  none  of  these  writers  have  found  the 
true  year  of  Exodus,  B.  C.  1591,  because  of  error  in  period  E.)  We  be- 
sides appeal  to  the  following 

Ancient  Authorities. 

§  14.  In  demonstration  that  we  have  rightly  the  reckoning  of 
Paul  for  the  period  of  the  Judges  as  about  "450  years,"  and  the  whole 
time  intended  at  I  Ki.  vi:  i  as  580  years  from  the  Exodus  to  the 
temple, — we  have  the  testimony  of  several  ancient  authors  at  and 
before  the  time  of  Paul,  giving  us  about  the  same  values,  as  what  they 
learned  from  the  Scriptures  of  their  day. 

First,  we  name  Josephus  (in  Paul's  own  day),  whose  general  reli- 
ability none  can  question.  (See  Rest,  of  Jos.,  Appendix  A.)  In  his  full 
and  careful  history  drawn  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  his  other 
works,  he  repeatedly  and  constantly  gives  the  interval  from  the  Exodus 
to  the  temple  as  "  592  years."  (See  Rest,  of  Jos.,  Appendix  G.)  And 
upon  examining  his  method  of  reckoning,  we  find  that  he  derived  this 
number  from  a  580  years  value  previously  understood  (but  not  ex- 
pressed) at  I  Ki.  vi:  I.  We  have  not  room  here  to  explain  this  in  full; 
but  we  give  the  complete  exhibit  in  our  succeeding  treatise,  ("  Origin 
of  the  480th  year,"  §69  here).  It  is  plain,  that  there  was  no  such 
reading  as  "480th  year"  in  the  Scripture  text  in  the  time  of  Josephus 
(and  Paul);  for,  if  there  had  been,  he  would  not,  in  entire  neglect  and 
evident  ignorance  of  it,  have  given  and  insisted  on  the  larger  value,  as 
he  does. 

§  15.  We  next  cite  two  noted  Jewish  histoinans,  who  wrote  about 
200  years  B.  C;  namely  Eupolemus  (B.  C.  174)  and  Demetrius  (B.  C. 
210).  These  authors  give  the  LXX  chronology  as  2262  years  from 
creation  to  the  flood+1362  to  Jacob's  going  to  Egypt+215  to  the  Exodus 
=3839  A.  M.  for  the  date  of  theExodus+"  1310  "years  to  the  5th  year  of 
king  Demetrius  in  Asia,  B.  C.  294;  saying  that  this  latter  date  was 
"5149  A.  M.,"  which  (says  Jackson)  was  1012 — 294  B.  C.=7i8  years 
after  the  4th  year  of  Solomon.  So  that,  they  have  ("1310" — 718^) 
592  years  from  the  Exodus  to  the  4th  of  Solomon,  the  same  as  Josephus 
has.  They  know  nothing  of  a  "480th  year  "  in  Scripture,  but  only  the 
longer  reckoning  derived  from  580,  perhaps  in  the  same  way  as 
Josephus  derived  it.     (See  Rest,  of  Jos.,  Appendix  G.) 


THE    JUDGES 


The  Old  Priest  Record. 


§  i6.  We  now  come  to  the  original  document,  most  plainly  corrob- 
orating our  view.  The  Priest  Record  of  the  Jew^s  already  referred  to 
as  used  by  Josephus,  gives  the  lengths  of  the  high-priesthoods  from 
the  Exodus  to  the  end  of  the  captivity,  as  "  612  years  "  to  the  death  of 
Zadok  (in  Solomon's  reign),  and  then  "466J4  years"  to  (and  including) 
the  captivity.  This  makes  (612+466=)  1078  years,  or  just  (1078-=- 49^ 
32  jubilee  periods  complete,  between  the  start  of  jubilees  at  the  Exodus 
date  and  the  jubilee  at  the  close  of  the  captivity.*  This  was  prob' 
ably  the  official  record  of  the  Jews,  and  it  agrees  exactly  with  the 
Scripture  Chronology  which  we  have  shown  in  Period  E,  and  with  the 
580  years  which  we  claim  as  Scripture  in  Period  D. 

§  17.  For  we  proved  the  Scripture  interval,  from  the  founding  of 
the  temple  in  the  4th  of  Solomon,  to  the  beginning  of  the  second  tem- 
ple in  the  2nd  of  Darius,  to  be  491  years  (from  B.  C.  loii  to  520),  just 
as  given  by  Josephus  himself  in  the  War;  or,  490  years  (10  Jubilees) 
from  Solomon's  dedication  in  B.  C.  1003  to  the  traditional  dedication 
given  by  Josephus  at  B.  C.  513.!  Now,  the  (612+466=)  total  1078  years 
of  the  Priest  Record  reaches  back  from  its  traditional  B.  C.  513  as  the 
end  of  captivity  to  B.  C.  1591  as  the  Exodus  date,  just  where  our  580 
years  reckoning  puts  it.  That  is,  the  total  1078  of  the  Priest  Record, 
minus  the  490,  leaves  588  years  before  Solomon's  dedication,  or  580  be- 


*That  the  "466  years  "  is  meant  to  include  the  captivity,  is  apparent 
from  three  facts:  (i)  This  Priest  Record  says,  that  in  this  mterval 
"  eighteen  priests  took  the  high-priesthood  at  Jerusalem;  and,  though 
it  names  Jozedek  as  the  last  one  at  the  capturing,  yet  Josephus'  own 
list  (given  at  Ant.  10,  viii:  6)  has  but  17  after  Zadok,  even  including  his 
omitted  Azarias,  and  requires  the  addition  of  Jozedek's  son  Jeshua 
who  served  at  the  restored  temple.  (2)  This  Priest  Record  itself  goes 
on  to  give  the  next  interval  down  to  the  Maccabees,  beginning  it  from 
the  restoration  after  captivity,  as  all  scholars  are  agreed.  The  only 
question  raised  is,  at  what  particular  point  of  the  restoration  it  begins; 
which  shows  that  the  previous  captivity  is  certainly  included  in  the 
previous  interval.  (3)  The  Priest  Record  designates  its  latest  interval 
as  the  period  of  "  democratical  government,"  which  shows  that  its 
calling  the  previous  interval  a  period  of  "regal  government"  meant, 
that  the  Jews  were  under  royalty  (domestic  or  foreign)  until  the  "  dem- 
ocratical government"  was  fully  established  by  them  at  the  end  of  70 
years  captivity.     (See  Rest,  of  Jos.,  §37.) 

t  Ezra  vi:  15,  16,  appears  as  if  putting  no  time  between  the  finish- 
ing and  the  dedicating  of  the  second  temple.  But  as  at  Solomon's 
temple  there  was  a  year's  delay  after  the  finishing,  purposely  to  bring 
the  dedication  at  the  Jubilee  festivity  (from  B.  C.  1004  to  1003), — so  Jo- 
sephus in  the  Priest  Record  follows  the  traditional  view,  that  there  was 
similar  delay  at  the  second  temple,  purposely  to  bring  this  dedication 
also  at  the  Jubilee  date  (/.  t\,  from  B.  C.  516  in  Ezra  vi:  15,  to  B.  C, 
513  inverse  16,  the  6th  to  gth  Darius.)     See  Restor.  of  Jos.,  §24. 


224  PERIOD    D 

fore  the  beginning  of  the  temple,  just  as  we  claim.  This  shows  that 
(612 — 580=)  32  years  of  the  Priest  Record's  "  612,"  extend  beyond  the 
beginning  of  the  temple  to  the  death  of  Zadok. 

§  18.  Thus  the  612+466=1078  of  the  Priest  Record  is  the  very  580 
4-8-1-490=1078  of  our  reckoning  drawn  from  Scripture,  in  agreement 
with  Josephus  and  Paul.  Does  not  this  prove  that  we  are  right,  and 
that  this  Priest  Record  is  the  original  and  official  dating  of  the  Jewish 
history  found  in  the  Bible? 

The  1078  years  of  the  Priest  Record  -|-  the  400  years  preceding  the 
Exodus  (Gen.,  xv:  13;  Acts,  vii:  6),  give  1478  years  back  from  B.  C.  513 
to  B.  C.  iggi,  as  the  date  of  Ishmael's  Egyptian  "mocking"  of  Isaac 
(at  5  years  of  age).  So  that,  8  years  later  (reducing  the  1478  to  1470 
years  back)  at  B.  C.  1983,  the  Priest  Record  had  1470  years  of  priestly 
sacrifice,  or  (1470-^49=)  just  30  Jubilee  periods, — from  the  Jubilee  fol- 
lowing the  second  temple  sacrifice,  back  to  the  Jubilee  following  the 
Isaac  sacrifice  (a  year  after  he  was  12  years  old).  A  notable  concur- 
rence of  the  Priestly  with  the  Jubilee  period! 

The  Church  Fathers. 

§  19.  We  further  summon  as  witnesses  all  the  early  Christian  fathers 
and  chroniclers,  Theophilus  of  Antioch  (A.  D.  171),  Clement  Alex.  (189), 
Julius  Africanus  (221),  the  Paschal  Chronicle,  etc;  who  all  give  the 
longer  interval  from  the  Exodus  to  the  temple,  and  know  nothing  of 
the  "480th  year."  Clement  Alex,  gives  Josephus'  reckoning  592 
years,  but  he  really  makes  out  the  true  580.*  Theophilus  increases  it 
to  612,  the  Pas.  Chron.  to  632.  Eusebius  had  600,  Syncellus  made  it  659, 
and  attributed  to  Africanus  741.  Eusebius  (A.  D.  320)  is  the  first  writer 
proclaiming  "the  480th  year";  but  he  also  gives  Paul's  reckoning  as 
600   (he  should  say  580),  calling  it  the  "apostolical  tradition."  f 

*  Clement  Alex,  gives  the  592  years  of  Josephus,  Demetrius,  etc. 
(as  seen  in  the  Rest,  of  Jos.,  Appendix  G),  attiubuting  the  reckoning  to 
the  "  barbarians  "  or  non-Christians.  But  he  really  by  his  numbers 
makes  the  true  580  (though  he  wrongly  adds).  For,  he  puts  the 
"about  450"  of  Paul  as  being  "463,"  and  follows  it  by  27  years  to 
David,  increasing  the  one  and  decreasing  the  other  by  13,  and  so 
reaching  no  change  of  total,  thus: — Moses  40-l-Josh.  7-|-Judges  463-f- 
27  to  David-|-David  40-f-Solomon  3=580  years.  But  by  leaving  out 
the  7  of  Joshua,  he  adds  it  up  as  only  "  573."  And  again  he  adds  it 
thus:  4o477-f-Paurs45oth+27-|-4o-|-3="  566  "  years  only, — all  evidently 
false  addings,  founded  on  the  true  580. 

f  Eusebius  gives  all  the  items  from  the  book  of  Judges,  the  same 
as  in  Josephus;  except  that  Samuel  is  increased  8  (from  12  to  20),  mak- 
ing Samuel  and  Saul  amount  to  40  years,  and  increasing  the  592  to  600; 
with  Josephus'  loss  of  8  years  at  Abdon  changed  to  a  loss  of  8  years 
from  the  10  of  anarchy  after  Joshua,  leaving  but  27  years  from  Moses 
to  Chushan  (as  if  all  belonging  to  Joshua.)    This 600  years  reckoning  of 


THE   JUDGES  225 

§  20.  A  still  more  striking  witness  is  Origen  (A.  D.  220).  "  Origen 
{Com.  in  Joh.  p.  iSy)  cites  the  text  I  Ki.,  vi:  i,  leaving  out  all  that  part'" 
about  the  480th  year  interval.  (Jackson,  Chron.  Antiq.)  Here  is  as- 
good  a  proof  of  what  Ovigen  found  or  did  not  find  in  his  copy  of  the 
Old  Testament,  as  if  we  had  before  us  his  own  Ms.  of  the  book  of 
Kings.  And  this  is  much  earlier  than  any  Ms.  of  Scripture  that  we 
have.  What  further  proof  is  needed,  that  the  "480th  year  "  is  an  in- 
terpolation, not  introduced  into  the  Hebrew  text  until  as  late  as  the  3d 
century,  a  short  time  before  Eusebius? 


CHAPTER  II. 

Attempted   Defences   of    "the  480TH  Year." 

^  21.  There  are  many  who  (with  the  Usher  Chronology)  attempt 
to  maintain  "the  480th  year"  as  the  genuine  originally  given  length  of 
time  in  I  Kiiags,  6:  i.  This  100  years  of  decrease  from  the  580  of  the 
items  given  in  Scripture,  is  sought  to  be  made  out  in  different  ways. 

I. — The  old  method,  reported  by  Eusebius  as  "Jewish  tradition," 
was,  to  drop  out  the  periods  of  foreign  oppression  named  in  the  Scrip- 
ture narrative,  they  being  treated  as  contemporaneous  with  the  periods 
of  rule  given  to  the  judges.  But  there  are  insuperable  objections  to 
this  view. 

§  22.  This  is  to  treat  the  book  of  Judges  in  a  manner  entirely 
anomalous,  and  unheard  of  in  the  interpretation  of  any  other  history. 
The  book  (until  the  appendix  is  reached  at  chapter  17)  is  on  its  face  a 
plain  and  orderly  account  of  successive  events,  carefully  giving  the 
time-length  of  the  peaceful  periods  and  of  the  intervals  between  them. 
Notice  how  explicitly  the  author  introduces  his  history  (at  ii:  13-21),  as 
containing  successive  and  alternating  periods  of  servitude  and  inde- 
pendence (particularly  ver.  18,  19).  And  natice  also  how  similarly 
Samuel  (at  I  Sam.,  xii:  9-1 1)  and  all  the  sacred  writers  ever  afterward 
described  those  alternating  periods  of  peace  and  distress.  A  fondness 
for  round  numbers  may  have  led  the  writer,  in  some  instances,  to  put 
a  successive  19-I-  and  41 —  as  20  and  40,  or  the  like;  but  we  have  no 
good  reason  to  distrust  the  numbers,  as  meant  for  an  accurate  account 
of  the  lapse  of  time. 

Eusebius  is  adopted  by  Jackson  as  his  own  chronology;  except  that  he 
lets  Samson's  20  years  cover  20  years  of  the  previous  Philistine  inva- 
sion, thus  reducing  the  total  to  the  right  580  years,  which  is  Jackson's 
reckoning.  We  prefer  to  use  the  same  580  years,  with  the  items  of 
Josephus  (and  Paul),  instead  of  Eusebius  (and  Jackson) — namely:  10 
not  2  of  anarchy  after  Joshua's  25  years,  offset  by  12  not  20  for  Sam- 
uel, with  40  for  Saul  not  an  extra  40  for  Eli. 


226  PERIOD    D 

§  23.  For  instance,  at  the  first  transition  (Chap,  iii)  we  read  (verse 
11):  "  And  the  land  had  rest  forty  years.  *  *  *  And  the  children 
of  Israel  did  evil  again — and  because  they  had  done  evil  (ver.  14),  the 
children  of  Israel  served  Eglon,  the  king  of  Moab,  eighteen  years;  but 
when  they  cried  unto  the  Lord  (ver.  30),  Moab  was  subdued  that  day 
under  the  hand  of  Israel,  and  the  land  had  rest  fourscore  years."  No 
ingenuity  can  make  it  believeable,  that  those  18  years  of  i7itervening 
foreign  servitude  are  meant  to  be  included  as  a  part  of  either  period 
when  "  the  land  had  rest." 

So,  also,  when  "the  Lord  delivered  Israel  into  the  hand  of  Midian 
seven  years,"  (vi:  i) — to  include  this  either  within  the  previous  rule  of 
Deborah  when  "the  land  had  rest  forty  years"  (v:  31),  or  within  the 
subsequent  rule  of  Gideon  when  "the  country  was  in  quietness  forty 
years  in  the  days  of  Gideon  (viii:  28),  z.  e.,  after  his  conquest  of  Midian 
— this  seems  really  absurd.  Moreover,  in  Deborah's  time  when  "the 
land  had  rest  forty  years,"  to  include  in  this  Jabin's  period  when  "  for 
twenty  years  he  mightily  oppressed  the  children  of  Israel "  after 
"  Ehud  was  dead  "  (iv:  1-3) — this  seems  equally  absurd.*  And  so  of 
the  whole  book. 

II. — In  fact,  so  plain  are  the  incongruities  of  this  theory,  of  the 
foreign  oppressions  as  included  in  the  reigns,  that  for  a  long  time  it 
has  been  practically  abandoned.  And  instead  of  it,  various  plans  of 
overlapping  the  reigns  have  been  devised.  A  period  of  anarchy  after 
Joshua,  without  any  reign,  has  to  be  allowed;  and  hardly  any  two 
writers  can  agree  as  to  the  amont  of  this,  or  as  to  the  right  places  for 
making  the  overlap  of  reigns. 

§  24.  A  common  way  of  trying  to  make  out  the  480th  year  is  seen 
in  Scott's  Bible,  and  is  elaborated  by  J.  Schwartz  in  the  Bib.  Sacra, 
(July,  1888,  p.  449).  The  40  years  of  Philistine  oppression  (xiii:  i)  are 
dated  back  over  the  previous  reigns,  beginning  (it  is  said  in  the  west) 
when  the  oppression  of  the  Ammonites  began  (in  the  east,  x:  8).  And 
this  is  alleged,  merely  because  "  the  Philistines  "  are  named  there  (at 
x:  6,  7)  ! — though  the  very  next  verse  (8)  carefully  distinguishes,  that 
the  oppression  begun  "that  year"  was  that  of  the  Ammonites,  "on 
the  other  side  Jordan" — in  Gilead.  And  by  this  theory,  the  20  years 
of  Samson,  as  well  as  the  40  years  of  Eli,  are  also  dated  back,  as  all 
going  on  durifig  those  40  years  of  Philistine  oppression !  So  that,  the 
109  years  (of  chap,  x  to  xvi  inclusive)  after  Jair  to  the  death  of 
Samson,  as  given  in  Scripture  (see  our  table  before),  are  thus  reduced 
into  the  one  item  of  Philistine  oppression  "40  years,"  with  69  years 
entirely  cast  away  ! 


*  Deborah  was  perhaps  mitigating  the  oppression  during  those  20 
years  of  Jabin  (see  iv:  4);  but  those  20  years  certainly  were  not  in- 
cluded in  the  following  40  years  of  "rest." 


THE   JUDGES  227 

§  25.  But  even  with  this  plan  decided  upon,  hardly  any  two  writers 
can  agree  upon  other  required  overlaps.  The  incongruities  and  con- 
tradictions of  different  attempts  made,  we  fully  show  in  Appendix  C, 
§  47  (which  see).  In  such  ways  is  the  whole  chronology  of  the  judge- 
ship period  thrown  into  confusion;  though  it  is  so  simple  and  definite 
when  the  full  Scripture  numbers  are  followed,  as  shown  above. 

Indeed,  it  is  from  this  cause  chiefly,  that  it  has  become  fashionable, 
even  among  scholars,  to  say,  that  the  Bible  Chronology  generally,  and 
particularly  in  this  period,  is  verj-  confused  and  unreliable.  It  is  so, 
when  you  depart  from  the  simple  Bible  record  (compared  in  all  its 
parts,  and  so  found  consistent  and  plain),  and  undertake  to  fashion  it 
over  to  fit  some  fictitious  number  or  plan.  The  Scripture  ^lumbers  are 
as  authentic  as  any  other  Scripture  statements;  and  in  the  whole  Bible 
datings  we  find  as  yet  but  three  or  four  miscopyings  of  a  figure,  (as  few 
and  as  easily  correctible  as  other  slips  of  the  pen).  Thus  the  Scripture 
dates  and  periods  of  time  are  wonderfully  lucid  and  definite,  more  so 
than  any  history  we  know  of,  whether  ancient  or  modern. 

§  26.  Rightly  studied  and  accepted  as  a  whole,  Bible  Chronology  is 
one  of  the  exact  sciences.  It  forms  a  most  convincing  evidence  of 
divine  inspiration;  as  we  have  shown  in  our  treatment  of  its  various 
periods.  For  instance,  in  the  period  before  us,  take  the  simple 
inspired  statements  of  Paul,  compared  with  the  book  of  Judges  (un- 
mutilated),  and  all  the  numbers  harmonize  most  beautifully  together, 
as  seen  above  (in  our  tables,  ^  i,  5);  with  all  the  complaints  about  con- 
fusion and  uncertainty  brushed  out  of  the  way. 

Revised  Reading  of  Acts,  xiii:  20. 

III. — Some  of  late  have  tried  to  bring  confusion  into  the  clear  state- 
ments of  Paul  in  Acts,  13th,  by  pleading  the  new  reading  of  verse  20 
(given  in  the  Revised  Version);  as  if  it  could  be  twisted  into  a  dating 
backward,  or  as  saying  "  450  years  after  Abraham's  (or  Jacob's)  day," 
or  the  like.     But, 

§  27.  (i)  What  has  Abraham's  (or  Jacob's)  day  to  do  with  the  story 
Paul  is  telling,  concerning  God's  guidance  of  "  \\\\^  people  Israel "  from 
Moses  to  David,  beginning  (as  he  does)  most  explicitly  from  the  Exo- 
dus ?  He  is  plainly  meaning  to  give  an  exact  outline  of  that  definite 
period,  with  the  correct  intervals  of  time  that  elapsed  from  Moses  to 
David,  showing  how  long  it  took  to  prepare  the  Israel  redeemed  from 
Egypt  for  the  kingdom  of  David  and  his  son  Messiah.  And  to  pervert 
his  plain  teaching,  of  the  thne  the  lattd  was  gii'en  to  this  people  Israel 
as  democratically  their  own,  until  they  voluntarily  gave  it  away  to  a 
king,  (see  I  Sam.,  viii:  14), — to  pervert  this  as  if  an  irrelevant  refer- 
ence back  to  some  unknown  date,  which  nobody  can  fix, — this  is  only 
to  throw  ourselves  gratuitously  into  that  very  confusion  of  chronology, 
of  which  we  forthwith  proceed  to  complain. 


228  PERIOD    D 

§  28.  (2)  As  the  common  reading  of  our  King  James  Bible  cer- 
tainly does  not  admit  of  such  a  perversion,  no  more  does. the  new  read- 
ing admit  of  it.  The  revisers  did  not  think  that  view  possible,  as  is 
shown  by  the  "for"  they  insert.  Neither  their  construction  nor  the 
Greek  idiom  allows  us  to  understand  it  "450  years  after'"  some  vague 
unnamed  date;  but  the  land  is  given  as  theirs  '"''  for  450  years,"  till 
they  give  it  away.  If  the  changed  order  of  the  words  must  be  ac- 
cepted, (which  is  by  no  means  certain),  that  somewhat  peculiar  order 
is  accounted  for,  thus: 

Paul  first  names  the  450  years  of  possessing  the  land  democratically 
until  King  Saul:  but  after  giving  the  number,  he  bethinks  himself  to 
add  (parenthetically),  that  after  a  part  oi  this  period  had  elapsed,  there 
were  judges  ending  with  Samuel.  So  the  sentence  is  to  be  understood 
in  this  way:  "  He  apportioned  the  land  as  theirs  about  four  hundred 
and  fifty  years  (and  afterward  gave  Judges)  till  Samuel  the  prophet," 
who  was  superseded  by  King  Saul.  The  parenthetic  clause  was  meant 
to  express,  that  the  period  of  the  Judges  was  not  the  iv/iole  450  years  of 
inheritance,  but  began  somewhat  later,  as  we  have  seen  (above)  that  it 
did. 

^  29.  And  that  the  beginning  of  the  kingdom  under  Saul  was  a  not- 
able epoch,  fit  to  be  used  by  the  Scriptures,  as  making  the  end  of  4^0 
years  of  democratic  possession  of  the  land,  will  appear  very  obvious  to 
any  one  reading  the  8th  chapter  of  I  Samuel;  where  this  man  of  God  so 
strenuously  warns  the  people,  that  in  obtaining  a  king,  they  are  sur- 
rendering to  him  their  land  and  its  very  soil,  which  had  been  graciously 
given  them  to  be  enjoyed  as  their  own  in  severalty.  "And  he  said: 
This  will  be  the  manner  of  the  king  that  shall  reign  over  you:  He  will 
take  your  fields,  and  your  vineyards,  and  your  olive-yards,  even  the 
best  of  them,  and  give  them  to  his  servants.  And  he  will  take  the 
tenth  of  your  seed, — and  the  tenth  of  your  sheep,  and  ye  shall  be  his 
servants"  (ver.  11,  14,  17).  The  people's  decision  to  have  a  king  is 
called  a  rejection  of  God  and  of  the  democratic  homestead  God  had 
given  them  in  bringing  them  "out  of  Egypt"  (x:  18,  19).  And  so,  that 
"450  years  "  interval  became  a  marked  period  in  the  history  of  Israel's 
discipline,  which  Paul  did  not  fail  to  emphasize. 

^  30.  (3)  It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  revisers'  new  reading  of 
the  text  is  right.  The  early  Christian  fathers  read  Acts,  xiii:  20  just 
as  we  do,  with  the  450  dating  forward  over  the  Judges.  Earlier  than 
any  of  our  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  Eusebius  (A.  D. 
320)  wrote,  affirming  that  "  Paul  says  there  were  450  years  of  Judges.', 
(Hist,  ch,  16,  Migne  150.)  This  testimony  is  better  than  even  another 
uncial  Ms.,  in  confirmation  of  the  King  James  text  of  the  passage;  or 
at  least,  it  confirms  the  sense  we  draw  from  the  passage.  For  if,  as 
changed  in  the  Revision,  it  compels  a  different  meaning,  then  certainly 
the  copies  used  by  the  learned  Eusebius  (who  would  seek  out  the  best 


THE   JUDGES  229 

copies)  did  not  contain  the  Revised  text.  This  is  a  very  strong  argu- 
ment for  the  King  James  text;  'or  at  least,  it  demonstrates  that  the 
"450  years  "  covers  the  period  of  the  Judges,  as  we  claim. 

J?  31.  Thus  Paul's  dates  are  simple  and  plain,  and  there  is  no  need 
of  any  confusion  or  mistake  about  the  chronology,  if  we  only  take  the 
numbers  as  they  are  given.  The  attempt  to  get  rid  of  the  450  years  of 
democratic  land  possession,  is  only  a  part  of  the  attempt  to  maintain 
the  wrongly  copied  "480th  year"  of  ist  Kings;  and  the  whole  proced- 
ure is  a  most  destructive  one,  violating  numerous  Scripture  numbers 
(as  well  as  statements),  just  to  save  that  one  number  "480."  We  in 
our  next  chapter  discuss  fully  the  reasons  that  probably  led  to  the  mis- 
copying  of  it  (as  480  instead  of  the  original  580);  and  when  Paul's  recti- 
fication of  it  is  accepted,  everything  is  left  plain. 

g  32.     The  I  Sam.  vii:  2. 

X  IV. — There  are  many  who  make  a  needless  complication  of  the 
"  20  years  "  statement  in  I  Sam.  vii:  2,  and  some  other  datings  in  the 
same  book.  That  is  an  incidental  remark  of  the  writer,  introduced  by 
natural  suggestion.  When  speaking  of  the  ark  taken  to  a  certain  place, 
it  was  natural  to  mention  by  the  way  how  long  it  was  there;  and  to  con- 
found things,  as  is  done,  by  understanding  this  as  a  gap  of  20  years  in 
the  history  (a  Philistine  servitude,  say  some,  the  first  half  of  40  years  in 
Jud.  xiii:  i,  says  Schwartz),  intervening  before  the  next  event  given,  Sam- 
uel's victory  over  the  Philistines — is  an  altogether  needless  derange- 
ment of  the  chronology.  The  writer  simply  remarks  in  passing,  that 
after  the  ark  was  recovered  from  the  Philistines,  remaining  a  long 
while  {about  60  years)  at  its  new  resting-place,  Israel  attended  faith- 
fully to  the  worship  of  God  in  connection  with  it  for  the  first  twenty 
years;  that  is,  during  the  twenty  years  of  Samuel's  full  care  over  them, 
from  Eli's  death  and  the  return  of  the  ark,  until  the  rejection  of  Saul 
as  king,  which  led  Samuel  to  retire  from  public  affairs  to  a  more  private 
administration.     (Comp.  xv:  35,  and  vii:  15.) 

§  33.  In  this  verse  (vii:  2),  instead  of  "Israel  lamented,"  the  Re- 
vision marg.  has  "  Israel  was  drawn  together;  "  and  Gesenius'  Hebrew 
Lex.  (at  Xyr\^  Nahah)  translates  it,  "  'all  the  house  of  Israel  as- 
sembled themselves  after  Jehovah,'  constr.  pregnaus  for  'they  all  with 
one  mind  followed  after  Jehovah.'  "  And  (at  n\in  hahyah)  it  tells 
us  that  after  "it  was"  the  seeming  and  often  means  thai,  "it  was 
that,  and  it  came  to  pass  that."  So  that,  we  should  read  here,  "the 
time  was  long;  and  it  was  twenty  years  that  the  house  of  Israel  was 
drawn  together  after  Jehovah."  It  was  not  twenty  years  of  Philistine 
servitude,  but  twenty  years  of  happy  ark-service  and  worship  under 
Samuel,  until  the  rejection  of  Saul. 

These  "  20  years  "  covered  the  12  years  of  Samuel's  separate  judge- 
ship from  Eli's  death  to  Samuel's  address  at  the  beginning  of  Saul's 


^3U  PERIOD    D 

reign,  and  8  more  years  till  Saul  was  cast  off,  and  the  people  again 
strayed  from  God.  And  it  was  near  the  beginning  of  these  twenty 
years  (and  not  at  their  close)  that  Samuel's  reformation  of  the  people 
and  triumph  over  the  Philistines  occurred  (as  vii:  13  asserts).  This  is 
just  the  way  in  which  Josephus  clearly  arranges  the  years  of  Samuel; 
and  his  account  is  reliable  and  in  accordance  with  the  Bible.  There 
need  be  no  confusion  of  reckoning  here;  for  Paul's  account  in  Acts  is 
exactly  conformed  to  these  same  years  of  Samuel  and  of  Saul.  (See 
the  tables  at  our  beginning.) 

§  34.  It  seems  that  Samuel  was  born  at  about  the  beginning  of 
Eli's  40  years  judgeship,  being  12  j'ears  old  when  called  of  God,  Eli 
then  being  70  or  "very  old"  (as  said  at  ii:  22,  comp.  iv:  15).  So  that, 
at  Eli's  death  (aged  98)  Samuel  was  about  40  years  old,  and  then 
judged  12  years  till  he  was  52;  at  which  time  he  is  called  "old  "  (at  viii: 
:i)  and  "grey-headed"  (at  xii:  2).  This  does  not  mean  "very  old,"  as 
in  the  case  of  Eli  at  70.  The  Levites  generally  were  regarded  by  the 
Mosaic  law  as  too  old  for  full  service  at  the  age  of  fifty  (Num.  iv:  3, 
23,  30,  and  viii:  25).  As  Samuel  lived  on  through  the  greater  part  of 
Saul's  40  years  of  reign,  he  must  have  been  80  or  90  years  old  at  his 
death. 

Other  Points. 

§  35.  Professor  Harper  (in  the  S.  S.  Times,  July  20)  thinks  that 
there  must  be  a  gap  of  some  years  at  chapter  xi,  because  Saul  is  a 
young  man  up  to  that  time,  and  forthwith  (at  xiii:  i,  2)  he  has  a  grown 
son  Jonathan  going  to  war.  But  the  real  account  is  rather  this: 
Chapter  ix  and  x  to  ver.  17  is  an  episode,  or  going  back  to  narrate  pre- 
viotis  private  affairs,  suggested  to  the  writer  by  his  account  of  the 
public  complaints  in  chap.  viii.  When  the  people  beg  for  a  king,  the 
writer  is  reminded  to  go  back  and  tell  how,  years  before,  Samuel  had 
privately  anointed  a  youth  to  become  ruler  sometime  (not  then  ex- 
pressed as  a  king);  after  which  episode  he  resumes  (at  x:  17)  the  ac- 
count from  chap,  viii  about  the  public  demand  and  selection  of  a  King. 

That  the  demand  for  a  king  (chap,  viii)  connects  close  with  the  ac- 
count of  Nahash  (at  chap,  xi)  is  shown  by  what  Samuel  says  at  xii:  12. 
And  that  the  private  anointing  was  years  before  is  evident  from  the 
whole  story  of  it,  which  repi^esents  Samuel  as  at  that  time  in  his 
prime,  going  about  all  his  official  circuit  from  place  to  place,  long  be- 
fore he  had  on  account  of  years  devolved  much  upon  his  sons,  which 
led  to  the  open  demand  for  a  king.  Thus  Saul,  like  David,  was  pri- 
vately set  apart  years  before  his  public  recognition. 

§  36.  Here  we  see  an  important  principle  followed  in  the  writing 
of  scripture  as  of  other  history.  It  is  the  principle  of  retrospection  and 
anticipation.  Some  open  event  often  suggests  to  a  writer  some  previous 
preparatory  incident,  which  he  proceeds  to  interject  into  the  account. 


THE   JUDGES  231 

Nowadays,  the  use  of  the  phiperfect  {had  been)  carries  us  thus  back- 
ward, and  saves  all  mistake  as  to  the  order  of  time.  But  in  the  lack 
of  a  pluperfect  tense  among  the  Hebrews,  we  have  to  watch  the  nar- 
rative more  carefully  to  see  when  there  is  really  a  pluperfect  sense. 
This  idiom  will  explain  many  points  of  chronology  in  the  bible,  which 
some  have  thought  obscure.  For  instance,  the  case  before  us;  and 
also  Gen.  i:  i6,  which  means,  "And  God  //<7<^made  two  great  lights" 
(the  sun  and  the  moon;  that  is,  had  made  them  before  the  six  days  be- 
gan, and  now  only  set  or  exhibited  them  for  regulators  of  day  and 
night  on  the  earth's  surface,  by  clearing  away  the  clouds. 

§  37.  In  like  manner,  when  a  writer  has  struck  upon  a  subject,  he 
incidentally  anticipates  the  result  of  it,  in  order  to  finish  that  point  be- 
fore going  on  with  his  current  narrative.*  Thus,  as  we  have  seen  here 
at  I  Sam.  vii:  i,  having  told  how  the  ark  got  to  Kirjath-jearim,  the 
writer  incidentally  pauses  to  mention  how  long  it  there  was  treated  with 
respect;  and  then,  at  ver.  3,  he  returns  to  the  events  that  followed  its 
being  brought  there. 

Thus,  also,  at  xvi:  14,  the  writer  having  just  told  how  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  first  came  upon  David,  is  reminded  to  tell  how,  years  after- 
ward, that  Spirit  of  the  Lord  left  Saul,  and  David  was  called  in  to 
drive  away  the  evil  spirit  that  disturbed  him.  When  this  episode  of 
anticipation  is  finished  with  the  chapter,  the  writer  (at  chap,  xvii)  goes 
on  with  his  regular  history.  And  it  will  be  found  that  the  affair  of  the 
episode  belongs  near  the  beginning  of  chap,  xviii.f  It  was  very  likely 
Jonathan  here  awakened  to  love,  who  afterwards  was  the  "young 
man"  (xvi:  18,  Revision)  that  came  forward  and  had  David  sent 
for.  This  arrangement  relieves  the  otherwise  inexplicable  mystery  of 
Saul's  not  knowing  David,  at  xvii:  55-58.  (Note  that  David  had 
become  a  "valiant  man  of  war,'"  xvi:  18.)  It  also  gives  time  for 
the  change  in  Saul  at  xviii:  8,  otherwise  unaccountable.  In  ver.  6 
it  seems  to  be  David's  later  slaughter  of  Philistines  (see  Revision 
»;rtr^.)not  Goliah  alone  referred  to.  And  xvii:  15  refers  to  David's  going 
"  to  and  fro  "  (Revision)  from  his  home  to  Saul's  army  (ver.  19). 

§  38.  A  similar  case  occurs  at  Gen.  xxxv,  where  the  writer  finishes  up 
Jacob's  affairs  in  Canaan,  and  is  led  by  the  mention  of  Esau  (in  ver.  29) 
to  go  on  and  give  the  whole  subsequent  genealogy  of  Esau's  race. 
Whereupon,  he  returns  (at  chap.  37)  tobeginthestory  of  Joseph,  which 
probably  dates  back  before  the  events  of  the  34th  chapter,  %  when  Jacob, 
returning  from  Padan-aram,  first   came  and  tarried  awhile  with  his 

*  Thus  are  readily  explained  the  interjected  events  of  Gen.  xxxviii, 
etc.,  on  which  the  critic  Astrue  (A.  D.  1750)  based  his  documentary 
theory.  (See  Bib.  Sacra,  1884,  Oct.,  p.  673;  and  here.  Period 
C,  §  29). 

f  Note  that  xvii:  55  to  xviii:  5  is  wanting  inthelxx.     See  Revision. 

X  See  Appendix  D,  g  54. 


232  PERIOD    D 

father  Isaac  at  Hebron.  (Comp.  xxxi:  3,  30,  and  xxxiii:  18,  and  xxxv:  9, 
15,  and  xxxvii:  14.)  This  we  have  fully  shown  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra, 
July,  1887,  p.  553. 

A  few  such  common-sense  principles  of  interpretation,  applied  to 
the  Bible  history  as  to  other  books,  give  us  an  harmonious  Scripture 
Chronology;  which  is  wonderfully  complete  and  satisfactory,  greatly 
confirming  our  faith  in  the  Word  of  God.  The  loose  remarks  we  so 
often  hear,  about  the  uncertainty  of  Bible  dating,  and  the  little  im- 
portance of  correct  dates,  are  made  by  those  who  have  not  t]io7-flt(ghly 
studied  this  subject. 

§  39.  As  to  the  Egyptian  monuments  and  inscriptions,  the  light 
which  they  give  toward  fixing  the  date  of  the  Exodus,  is  as  yet  very 
vague  and  uncertain;  and  the  most  learned  Egyptologists  are  very 
widely  divided  in  opinion  as  to  the  year,  and  as  to  which  of  the 
Pharaohs  was  then  in  power.  Their  results  will  agree  with  the  date 
we  give  as  well  as  with  any  others.  This  we  will  proceed  to  show  in  a 
future  number, — Part  III,  §  loi. 

g  40.  A  life  study  of  the  subject  has  convinced  us,  that  the  safest 
way  is  to  search  out  and  stand  by  the  Bible  datings  in  their  simple  and 
harmonious  consistency,  as  presumably  correct;  and  wait  for  any  fuller 
scientific  researches,  to  see  if  they  can  thoroughly  prove  at  last  that 
such  a  palpable  interpretation  of  the  Bible  is  incorrect.  It  will  be 
time  enough  to  begin  tampering  with  the  record,  and  readjusting  the 
obvious  scripture  dates,  when  excavation  of  inscriptions  has  fixed  some 
date  for  certainty,  with  the  concurrence  of  investigators  generally, — 
a  point  far  from  being  reached  at  present.  Till  then,  we  candidly  own 
our  faith,  that  the  simple  Bible  will  come  out  uppermost  in  all  re- 
spects. 


APPENDIX  A. 

For  §  5  note. 
The  "4TH  Year  of  Solomon." 

45  41.  In  the  Bib.  Sacra  (July,  1888,  p.  447),  J.  Schwartz,  Egyptol- 
ogist, of  New  York,  says:  "For  some  peculiar  reason,  not  yet  satis- 
factorily explained,  the  early  Christian  chronologists  placed  the  build- 
ing of  the  temple  in  the  2nd,  in  place  of  the  biblical  4th  year  of  Solo- 
mon."    Some  light  may  come  from  the  following: 

The  early  chronologists  largely  followed  Josephus:  and  Josephus 
reckoned  a  joint  reign  of  Solomon  with  his  father.  (See  I  Kings,  ist 
chapter.)  So  that  Solomon's  4th  year  in  all  was  reckoned  as  but  2 
years  after  his  father's  death.  The  founding  and  finishing  of  the  tem- 
ple in  the  "4th  "  and  "  nth  "  years  of  Solomon  (I   Ki.,  vi:  i,  38)  were 


THE    JUDGES  233 

in  B.  C.  loii  and  1004,  the  death  of  David  being  in  B.  C.  1013,  bnt  with 
the  reign  of  Solomon  beginning  in  B.  C.  1014,  and  with  that  interme- 
diate year  B.  C.  1014-1013  as  a  joint  reign.  This  made  David  begin  in 
(1013+40^)  1053  B.  C,  and  Solomon  end  in  (1014 — 40=)  974  B.  C, 
with  only  79  (not  80)  years  to  both  reigns.  And  this  made  only  42 
years  and  49  years  from  the  beginning  of  David  to  the  beginning  and 
finishing  of  the  temple,  with  one  year  more  (an  8th  of  the  temple,  a 
50th  in  all)  to  the  dedication  in  B.  C.  1003. 

§  42.  This  is  just  the  chronology  which  Josephus  gives  in  his 
earlier  work,  the  War;  and  this  correct  dating  of  Solomon's  temple  as 
begun  in  B.  C.  loii,  when  put  with  the  "480th  year"'  (in  I  Ki.,  vi:  i), 
gives  the  Exodus  as  B.  C.  1490  (not  Usher's  1491),  or,  put  with  the  cor- 
rected 580  years,  it  gives  the  Exodus  as  B.  C.  1591,  the  Bible  date  we 
claim.  (See  §  13,  note.)  But  now,  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  treat  the 
temple  founding  in  B.  C.  ion  as  "the  4th  year  of  Solomon"  alone, 
(not  2  years  but  3  years  after  the  death  of  David),  then  the  year  of 
joint  reign  is  B.  C.  1015-1014  (being  an  extra  -year  in  addition  to  Solo- 
mon's 40);.  and  David's  accession  is  then  B.  C.  1054  (not  1053),  and  the 
total  of  both  reigns  is  80  (not  79)  years.  But,  as  in  this  case  Josephus' 
I  year  of  Shamgar  is  dropped  instead  of  his  i  of  Solomon  dropped,  the 
Exodus  and  all  previous  dates  remain  unchanged.  It  is  by  this  latter 
method,  with  David's  accession  at  B.  C.  1054,  that  we  reckon  here,  (at 
§  I,  etc.);  while  Josephus  always  has  it  at  B.  C.  1053.  Which  is  the 
more  correct,  everyone  may  judge  for  himself. 

i^  43.  We  have  given  above  the  chronology  of  Josephus  in  the 
War.  But  in  the  Antiquities,  he  seems  to  change  the  temple  one  year, 
while  still  retaining  David's  accession  as  B.  C.  1053.  He  there  reckons 
"  the  4th  year  of  Solomon"  as  not  incliidiftg  the  year  of  joint  reign 

B.  C.  1014-1013,  but  as  3  years  (instead  of  2)  after  the  death  of  David 
in  B.  C.  1013,  viz.,  in  loio  (not  ion),  for  the  founding  of  the  temple. 
This  was  to  understand  the  "4th  year"  and  the  "nth  year  "of  Solo- 
mon as  43  and  50  (not  42  and  49)  years  after  David's  accession,  from  B. 

C.  lOio  to  1003  (instead  of  ion  to  1004  as  previously) — WxWxthe  Sth  year 
omitted,  i.  e.,  with  the  dedication  in  B.  C.  1003  taken  as  the  same  7th 
year  as  the  finishing  of  the  temple.*  But  this  change  of  i  year  in  the 
founding  of  the  temple  (from  ion  to  loio)  made  Josephus'  "  592  years" 
reach  i  year  later  for  the  Exodus,  and  for  all  the  previous  chronology. 


*To  reach  this  result,  Josephus  had  only  to  regard  the  finisliing  in 
the  8th  month  (I  Ki.,  vi:  38),  to  mean  simply,  that  the  7  days  feas't  of 
tabernacles  in  the  7th  month  followed  by  the  7  days  feast  of  dedica- 
tion (II  Chron.  vii:  9)  finished  up  the  7th  month;  so  that,  the  8th 
month  had  arrived  when  "the  house  was  finished,  with  all  the  appur- 
tenances thereof,  and  with  all  the  ordinatices  thereof  (I  Ki.,  vi:  38, 
Revision,  ;«r;r<,'-.).  Some  Scripture  reasons  may  be  pleaded  for  this 
view,  which  we  have  exhibited  in  a  supplement. 


234  PERIOD    D 

APPENDIX  B. 

For  g  13. 
The  Astronomical  Date. 

We  know  from  Josh,  v :  10,  11,  (with  Num.  xxxiii :  3),  that  the  day  o//irst -fruits  on  en- 
tering Canaan  came  on  "  the  15th  day  of  the  ist  month  "  Nisan.  So  that,  it  being  nee 
essarily  "on  the  morrow  after  the  sabbath,"  (Lev.  xxiii :  11,  14),  the  sabbath  that  yeai 
must  have  come  on  Saturday  the  14TH  of  Nisan.  Our  purpose  is,  to  find  whether,  in 
our  year  for  Joshua's  entering  Canaan,  viz.,  B.  C.  (1591—40=)  1551  B.  C,  the  pasc^lial  14th 
Nisan  did  come  on  Saturday.     (See  Period  G,  Appendix  A.) 

§  44.  The  astronomical  process  for  the  Exodus  dating,  is  just  as 
in  our  New  Testament  reckoning  (Period  G.  §  34,  etc).  It  goes  as 
follows:  From  A.  D.  1855  to  B.  C.  1550=3404  years  (just  divisible  by 
4);  which  X365X=i2433ii  days  froin  Julian  (orO.  S.)  Jan.  6,  A.  D.  1855, 
to  Julian  Jan.  6,  B.  C.  1550;  or(— 9odays=)  1243221  days  back  to  Apl. 
6,  B.  C.  1550,  at  8X  A.  M. 

On  the  other  hand,  an  exact  lunation,  zgd.  5305885  being  X  42100 
lunations  ==  i243237d.  77585,  which  is  i6d.  776  excess  over  the  1243221 
days  to  April  6.  Or,  adding  acceleration  of  the  moon's  motion  for  3400 
years  (viz.,  the  .154  of  a  day),  we  have  i6d.  93  excess  back  to  the  new 
moon  in  that  April. 

This  excess  carries  the  new  moon  from  the  April  6  at  8X  a.  m.  back 
that  much  earlier,  to  March  20  at  10  a.  m.  in  B.  C.  1550.  Then,  if 
I  Nisan  began  at  sunset  of  March  22,  the  14  Nisan  ended  at  the  pass- 
over  sunset  of  April  5, — which  was  Wednesday,  and  will  not  answer 
our  purpose.  This  passover  was  very  nearly  on  the  equinox:  which 
was  then  April  4-5,  as  seen  thus:  A.  D.  325-f-B.  C.  1550=1874  years-4- 
130  yrs.  (for  each  day-change)=i4d.  4+Mar.  2i=April  4-5. 

The  next  ye.ar  after,  viz.,  B.  C.  1549,  had  the  new  moon  (29d.  5306 
Xi2==)  354d.  367  from  366  days=iid.  15  hours  earlier  than  the  Mar.  20 
at  10  A.  M.,  and  also  29d. — i2%h.  (or  i  lunation)  afterwards,  /.  e.,  on 
April  7  at  7K  a.  m.  Then,  if  i  Nisan  began  at  sunset  of  April  9,  the 
14  Nisan  ended  at  the  sunset  passover  of  April  23, — which  was  Tues- 
day, and  will  not  answer  our  purpose. 

§45.  In  the  next  year  before  B.  C.  1550,  /.  e.,  in  1551,  the  new 
moon  was  lod.  1511.  later  than  the  Mar.  20  at  10  a.  m.,  viz.,  on  March 
31  at  I  A.  M.*  Then,  if  i  Nisan  began  at  sunset  of  April  2,  the  14 
Nisan  ended  at  the  passover  sunset  of  April  16, — which  was  Saturday, 
as  the  Scripture  requires. 

This  fact,  that  April  16,  B.  C.  1551,  was  Saturday,  we  learn  by  the 
Rule  given  at  Period  G,  §  40,  thus:  One  less  than  the  year  is  1550, 
which-^28  leaves  10,  and  this-1-7  leaves  3,  to  which  we  add  2  (for  the 
two  4's  in  the  10),  and  add  i  more  (for  the  rest  of  the  10),  making  6  days 

*This  is  the  mean  reckoning,  which  corrected  will  be  about  3  hours 
later,  both  for  new  and  for  full  moon. 


THE    JUDGES  235 

before  Sunday,  /.  ^.,  Monday,  March  o  and  28,  and  April  4;  whence, 
Saturday  was  April  2,  and  9,  and  16,  in  B.  C.  1551. 

At  this  sunset  of  Saturday,  April  16,  B.  C.  1551,  the  Israelites  must 
have  kept  their  passover,  at  the  close  of  their  Sabbath  day — just  as. 
described  in  Josh,  v:  10,  11 — with  the  First-fruit  offering  coming  the 
next  day,  /.  e.,  "on  the  15  Nisan,  the  morrow  after  the  passover"  (see 
Num.  xxxiii:  3).  As  that  was  their  first  passover  upon  entering  Canaan, 
it  was  just  40  years  after  their  original  passover  at  the  Exodus;  so  that 
the  Exodus  was  in  (1551-1-40=)  1591  B.  C. 

Now  in  those  40  years,  there  were  495  lunations,  which  X  29d  5305885 
=i46i7d.  64,  /.  <".,  yd  i5>^h  more  than  the  (40  X  365^)=i46io  days  in  40 
years.  This  carries  the  new  moon  of  Mar.  31  at  i  a.  m.  in  B.  C.  1551, 
to  be  in  B.  C.  1591,  on  March  23,  at  9>^  a.  m.  And  if  i  Nisan  began  at 
sunset  of  March  25,  then  14  Nisan  ended  at  the  passover  sunset  of 
April  8 — which  was  Thursday.  For,  1591 — 1=1590-4-28  leaves  22^7 
leaves  i-t-5  (for  the  4's  in  22)-|-i  (for  the  rest  of  the  22)=7  or  o  days 
before  Sunday,  March  o  and  28  and  April  4.  So  that  April  8  was 
Thursday.  Therefore  the  Exodus  on  the  next  day,  the  15  Nisan,  was 
Friday,  April  9,  B.  C.  1591. 


g  46.  So  much  for  the  Exodus  date  B.  C.  1591,  as  derived  from  the 
580  years  interval.  Now  look  at  the  Usher  date  of  the  Exodus  B.  C. 
1491,  as  derived  from  "  the  480th  year  "  (given  in  the  present  text  of 
I  Ki.  vi:  i).  Usher  takes  his  B.  C.  1012  for  the  founding  of  the  temple 
in  "the  4th  year  of  Solomon,"  and  says,  B.  C.  1012  -|-  the  "480th  "^ 
1491  B.  C.  for  the  Exodus;  which  brings  the  passover  of  Josh,  v:  10,  11 
at  (1491 — 40=)  1451  B.  C. 

But  in  that  year  the  passover  was  Tuesday,  April  20,  B.  C.  1451;  so 
that  the  Saturday  passover  of  Josh,  v:  10,  11,  could  not  be  that  year. 
Whereas,  the  year  after,  the  passover  was  11  days  earlier,  on  Satur- 
day, April  g,  B.  C.  1450.  (This  we  learn  by  the  same  process  as  above, 
reckoning  either  with  the  100  years  difference,  or  with  the  whole  interval 
from  A.  D.  325.)  Therefore,  the  passover  of  Josh,  v:  10,  11  might  be 
in  that  year  1450,  and  the  Exodus  might  be  in  1490  B.  C:  but  it  was 
not  possible  in  B.  C.  1491. 

This  proves  the  correctness  of  our  date  B.  C.  loii  (not  1012)  for  the 
4th  of  Solomon  at  the  founding  of  the  temple;  for,  1490 — the  48oth= 
loii  B.  C.  Moreover,  we  thus  find  Usher's  i  year  too  early  at  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  (B.  C.  588  for  587  propagated  all  the  way  back 
to  the  Exodus  (B.  C.  1491  for  1490.) 

In  the  above  reckoning,  we  have  put  i  Nisan  as  beginning  when  the 
moon  was  about  2  days  old.  For,  the  new  month  and  the  new  year 
was  not  commenced  till  the  new  moon  festival  was  observed,  after 
report  of  the  new  moon  seen,  and  then  proclamation  and  congregating 


236 


PERIOD    D 


for  the  purpose.  All  which,  in  that  early  day  of  rude  observation, 
must  usually  cover  two  days  at  least  after  change  of  the  moon — and 
especially  as  clouds  often  prevented  the  observation.  (See  Period  G, 
§31.) 


APPENDIX  C. 

For  §  25. 

Attempts  to  Make  "480." 

§  47.  To  show  the  incongruities  and  contradictions  of  all  attempts 
to  reduce  the  Scripture  numbers  to  the  480th  year,  we  will  here  com- 
pare the  current  Usher  method  in  Scott's  Bible  with  the  later  method 
of  J.  Schwartz  in  the  Bib.  Sacra,  (July,  1888,  p.  451).  The  interval 
from  the  Exodus  to  the  Temple  being  for  convenience  divided  at  the 
Ammonite  invasion  (Jud.  x:  7),  the  periods  before  and  after  that  point 
we  call  the  Pre-Ammon  and  the  Post-Ammon  periods.  And  the  figures 
are  these: 


Scripture. 

Scott. 

Schwartz. 

Error. 
]  Scott  Sch. 

Dif. 

Sch. 

Moses 

j          40 

40 
290 

40          } 
315          i 

[-..  ^. 

+25 

Pre-Ammon 

Whole 

\      376 

330 

355        i 

(Total= 

479 

479)       \ 

Whole 

1      204 

149 

124        ) 

) 

Post-Ammon 

]        43 

106 

81        \ 

(' 

David  40,  Sol.  3 

43 

43        f 

1-55    -80 

-25 

— lOI    — lOI 

0 

The  difference  of  the  two  periods  in  the  two  writers  is  25  years, 
which  Scott  adds  in  as  extra  25  years  of  Samuel,  but  which  Schwartz 
takes  off  from  Samuel  and  adds  in  after  Chusan.  For  Scott  has  the 
peculiar  scheme,  of  letting  Ehud's  80  cover  both  Eglon's  18  and  Oth- 
niel's  40,  thus  losing  58  years, — 25  of  which  Schwartz  thus  restores. 
This  leaves  33  still  to  be  restored  after  Chushan;  which  Schwartz  (mak- 
ing up  correctly  all  the  301  total  of  the  numbers  given  in  Judges  down 
to  the  Ammonite  invasion),  accomplishes  by  substituting  33  taken 
from  before  Chushan,  thus: 

g  48.  The  Scripture  amount  before  Chushan  is  (anarchy  10  +  Joshua 
25=)  35,  which  taken  from  the  true  Pre-Ammon  amount  336,  leaves 
301  as  the  amount  of  the  numbers  given  in  the  book  of  Judges]  from 
Chushan  to  the  Ammonite  invasion.  But  Scott's  loss  of  58  after 
Chushan  reduces  this  301  to  243,  which  taken  from  his  required  Pre- 
Ammon  amount  290,  leaves  47  as  his  amount  before  Chushan.     (By  an 


THE    JUDGES  237 

oversight,  Scott's  Bible  has  2  years  more  (making  49),  caused  by  a  loss 
of  2  from  Jabin's  20.)  Schwartz  reducing  this  47  by  34  (as  just 
seen)  has  left  but  14  years  from  Moses  to  Chushan, — including  the 
whole  reign  of  Joshua  and  the  anarchy  that  followed! — or  only 
3oi-|-i4^  315,  instead  of  the  correct  336, down  to  the  Ammonite  invasion. 
This  necessitated  feature  of  deficiency  after  Moses  in  the  Schwartz 
method  is  alone  sufificient  to  condemn  the  whole  scheme;  while  in 
avoiding  this,  Scott's  necessitated  method  of  dating  back  Ehud's  80 
years  of  "rest"  over  not  only  Othniel's  40  but  also  Eglon's  18  years 
of  Moabite  tyranny  over  Isrsel,  is  alone  enough  to  condemn  that 
scheme  also. 

And  further,  Scott's  scheme  of  losing  so  much  after  Chushan  re- 
duces his  total  from  Moses  to  the  Ammonite  invasion, — by  a  net  58 — 
(his  47-35)=46, — from  the  336  down  to  290  years;  in  violation  of  the 
"  300  years  "  given  at  Ju.  xi:  26.  But  notice  now  the  incongruities  and 
errors  caused  by  this  whole  plan  of  overlapping  the  reigns  after  the 
Ammonite  invasion. 

^49.  (i)  In  xiii:  i,  the  people  "did  evil  again""  {inarg.  "  Heb. 
added  to  commit  evil  "),  after  the  events  and  dates  given  before.  So 
that  the  40  years  of  Philistine  oppression  now  to  be  brought  upon  them 
can  not  be  thrown  back,  as  if  it  stated  that  they  had  transpired 
already. 

(2)  This  back  reckoning  makes  Abdon  (xii:  13)  reach  9  years  after 
the  death  of  Samson  and  Eli!  and  so  his  8  years  are  dropped  out  en- 
tirely by  many.  Schwartz  has  these  8  years  of  Abdon  ruled  along  with 
Samuel,  as  the  first  part  of  the  latter's  supposed  20  (at  I  Sam.  vii:  2) 
spent  during  Philistine  oppression,  in  direct  contradiction  of  verse  13. 
And  he  says  that  Josephus  had  Abdon's  8  years  thus  reckoned;  though 
it  is  notorious,  on  the  contrary,  that  Josephus  has  Samson  and  Eli 
between  Abdon  and  Samuel,  as  necessitated  by  his  aggregate  number 
592  years. 

(3)  The  20  years  judgeship  of  Samson  (xv:  20  to  xvi:  31)  begins  "  in 
the  days  of  the  Philistines,"  reaching  20  years  after  their  40.  What 
sort  of  a  judgeship  would  his  be  (and  that  of  Jephthah,  etc.,  put  at  the 
same  time),  with  the  people  "delivered  into  the  hands  of  the  Philis- 
tines" all  the  while? 

g  50.  (4)  The  last  20  years  judgeship  of  Eli,  (which  is  all  the  Ixx 
gives  him,  under  the  administration  of  Samuel,  as  described  in  I  Sam. 
iii:  20  to  iv:  i, — synchronizing  with  Samson's  20, — could  not  be  during 
the  subjection  to  the  Philistines.  For  though  there  was  subjection 
before  (Jud.  xv:  11),  yet  when  Samson's  20  years  began  "in  the  days  of 
the  Philistines"  (ver.  20),  he  kept  the  Philistines  subdued  while  he 
lived,  as  seen  by  chap.  xvi. 

(5)  A  leading  absurdity  is,  that,  after  the  40  years  of  Philistine  op- 
pression,  thus  made  to  cover  all  Samson's   and  Eli's  judgeship,  this 


238  PERIOD    D 

view  makes  another  Philistine  oppression  of  20  years  immediately  to  fol- 
lota  after  Eli's  death, — interpreting  in  this  way  I  Sam,  vii:  2-12.  Think 
oi  sixty  yea j's  of  continuous  PhiUstine  domination!  yet  at  Jud.  xiii:  i 
hmited  to  forty  years!  But  the  PhiUstine  battle  at  I  Sam.  iv:  i,  and 
after  7  mo.  at  vii:  7,  was  not  a  new  oppression  of  20  years,  but  only  a 
new  attempt  after  the  death  of  Sampson,  and  ended  all  their  attempts 
(ver.   13).     See  §  32. 

§  51.  (6)  To  be  rid  of  this  extravagant  60  years  of  continuous 
Philistine  domination,  the  resort  of  Schwartz  is,  to  let  the  "40  years  " 
oppression  of  Jud.  xiii:  i  cover  the  "  20  years  "  mentioned  at  I  Sam. 
vii:  2,  as  the  last  half  of  the  Philistine  domination;  during  all  which 
last  20  years  of  foreign  servitude  Samuel's  administration  was  going 
on!  This  is  in  direct  contradiction  of  I  Sam.  vii:  13,  which  says:  "  So 
the  Philistines  were  subdued  [by  Samuel],  and  they  came  no  more 
into  the  coast  of  Israel;  and  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  against  the  Phil- 
istines all  the  days  of  Samuel.'' 

(7)  To  escape  this  difficulty,  the  Usher  chronology  in  Scott's  Bible 
has  Samuel's  rule  delayed  till  after  the  alleged  Philistine  domination  at 
I  Sam.  vii:  2  is  over;  and  so  puts  in  an  exti"a  25  years  for  Samuel  after 
that, — reducing  Saul  from  40  to  20  for  the  purpose.  By  this  plan,  the 
first  20  years  of  the  Philistine  dominion  is  covered  by  the  judgeship  of 
Eli  taken  as  only  20  years.  So  that  the  Scriptural  "40  years"  of  Eli 
reach  back  20  years  before  the  Ammonite  invasion  (as  seen  in 
Schwartz)!  and  Samson's  beginningto  "judge  Israel"  is  only  the  be- 
ginning of  a  40  years  domination  of  Philistia  over  them! 

§  52.  (8)  Trying  to  relieve  this  last  absui"dity,  Schwartz  intro- 
duces a  worse  one.  He  puts  Samson's  20  years  along  later,  to  begin 
from  the  death  of  Eli,  and  cover  the  last  20  years  of  Philistine  domin- 
ation (as  the  "  20  years"  of  I  Sam.  vii:  2).  This  is  saying  that  "  Sam- 
uel judged  the  children  of  Israel  in  Mizpeh"  (I  Sam.  vii:  7)  during  all 
the  time  wlien  "  Samson  judged  Israel  twenty  years,"  while  also  Jeph- 
thah,  Ibsan,  and  Eglon  "judged  Israel,"  (Jud.  xii:  7-11,  and  xvi:  31) — 
and  while  at  the  same  time  the  people  were  under  two  foreign  domin- 
ions, being  "delivered  into  the  hands  of  the  Philistines  40 years  "  (Jud. 
xiii:  i),  and  being  "sold  into  the  hands  of  the  children  of  Ammon,"  18 
years  of  the  same  time  (x:  7,  8)!  Surely,  a  wonderful  combination  of 
mixed  up  simultaneousness!  Thus  Samuel's  victory  over  the  Philistines 
is  made  one  with  Samson's  death-triumph  over  them;  while  all  Sam- 
uel's previous  twenty  years  of  "judging  Israel"  (I  Sam.  vii:  2,  6,  13) 
is  represented  as  a  domination  of  Philistia! 

(9)  Josephus  takes  20  from  Saul's  40  years,  but  adding  them  to  20 
more  as  a  40  of  Eli  put  in  (with  Abdon's  8  not  added),  he  gets  (40 — 28  =) 
12  extra,  instead  of  a  loss  from  this  lessening  of  Saul.  Scott  has  the  20 
from  Saul  put  upon  Samuel,  thus  not  reducing  the  time  after  Eli. 
But  Schwartz  drops  entirely  the  20  years  taken  from  Saul,  and  so  has 


THE   JUDGES  239 

but  40  years  left  from  Samson  to  the  reign  of  David  ! — while  Saul  is 
given  only  20  years,  and  Samuel  full  40  between  Eli  and  Saul  ! 

§  53.  (10)  All  these  methods  are  inviolatiou  of  the  histoi^y  contained 
in  the  book  of  Ruth.  It  is  generally  taken  for  granted,  that  Ruth  lived  in 
the  earfy  days  oi  the  Judges.  But  Josephus  positively  asserts  (Ant.  5,  ix: 
i),  that  it  was  "  under  Eli,  the  high  priest  and  governor  of  the  Israelites." 
And  the  contents  of  that  book,  its  pleasant  and  peaceful  story  of  do- 
mestic life,  requires  such  an  assignment,  rather  than  in  previous  war- 
like and  disorderly  times.*  Now  Ruth's  son  Obed  was  grandfather  of 
David  (Ruth  iv:  17);  and  this  requires  his  birth  to  be  70  or  80  years  be- 
fore David's  reign.  Accordingly,  our  Scripture  reckoning  gives  (Saul 
40 -|-  Samuel  12  -|-  Eli  40=)  92  years  to  the  beginning  of  Eli;  or  72 
years  to  the  end  of  Philistine  oppression,  at  the  beginning  of  Samson's 
20  years. 

Whereas,  the  Usher  reckoning  (in  Scott)  has  but  (20  +  25  =)  45 
years,  and  Schwartz  has  but  (20  +  20  =)  40  years  back  to  the  end  of 
Philistine  domination;  while  the  latter  has  but  60  years  to  the  full  sweep 
of  their  warfare,  in  the  very  region  of  Bethlehem,  the  home  of  Boazand 
Ruth, — before  Samson  began  to  restrain  the  enemy  !  This  deficiency 
off)  time,  as  well  as  the  divei^se  and  conti^ary  methods  attempted,  all 
shows  how  impracticable  the  shoi'tened  system  is,  which  tries  to  get 
only  the  "480th  year." 

APPENDIX  D. 

For  i;  37. 
That  "Canonical  Formula." 

g  54.  Some  have  thought,  that  the  events  narrated  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Judges  did  not  occur  "after  the  death  of  Joshua,"  as  said 
in  verse  i;  simply  because  in  verse  10,  11  two  cities,  Hebron  and 
Debir,  are  named  among  those  assailed  by  the  army  of  Judah;  which 
two  cities  are  given  at  Josh,  x:  36-38,  as  fully  conquered  and  utterly 
destroyed  by  Joshua  (ver.  40). 

Certainly,  Jud.  i:  10-15  is  a  parenthetic  digression,  taken  from  Josh. 
XV :  14-19,  by  way  of  retrospection;  being  suggested  by  what  is  said  in 
Jud.  1:9.  So  that  verse  10  properly  reads  thus:  "And  Judah  went 
against  the  Canaanites  that  dwelt  in  Hebron.  (Now  the  name  of 
Hebron  bcforetime  was  Kirjath  Arba;  and  beforetitne  they  slew  She- 
shai,"  etc.,  to  ver.  17,  all  properly  in  the  parenthesis.)  But  the  pre- 
vious topic,  Judah's  warfare  in  concert  with  Simeon,  which  occupies 
verses  1-9  and  is  resumed  at  ver.  17  onward,  belongs  after  the  death  of 
Joshua  just  as  certainly,  as  verse  i  asserts. 

*A  writer  in  the  Bib.  Sacra  (Oct.  1891,  p.  659)  urges  this  view.  Per- 
haps there  is  a  gap  before  Boaz,  in  the  genealogy.     (Ruth  iv:  21.) 


240  PERIOD    D 

Jj  55.  It  was  Joshua,  not  a  league  of  Judah  with  Simeon,  that  con- 
quered "all  the  country  of  the  hills,  and  of  the  south,  and  of  the  vale, 
and  of  the  springs,"  and  "  all  the  mountains  of  Judah,"  as  recorded  in 
Josh,  x:  40,  and  xi:  21.  Such  a  sectional  league  of  two  tribes,  to  fight 
in  their  "  lot "  at  the  people's  demand  (Jud.  i:  1-3),  would  have  been 
entirely  unnatural  and  ©ut  of  the  question  under  Joshua's  generalship, 
and  especially  then,  when  the  land  had  not  been  allotted.  And, 
though  of  those  found  in  the  conquered  places  Joshua  "left  none  re- 
maining, but  utterly  destroyed  all  that  breathed,"  yet  of  course  some 
had  escaped  before  their  cities  were  fully  invested,  and  returned  after- 
wards (in  Israel's  lukewarmness)  to  recover  their  possessions.  So  that, 
there  was  real  occasion  for  Judah  (with  Simeon)  to  go  "  down  against 
the  Canaanites  that  dwelt  in  the  mountain,  and  in  the  south,  and  in 
the  valley" — "after  the  death  of  Joshua,"  as  told  in  Jud.  i:  i,  9. 

§  56.  Yet,  strange  to  say,  the  writer  in  the  Bib.  Sacra.  (Oct.  1891,  p. 
652),  argues  at  length,  that  all  this  opening  portion  of  Judges  belongs 
back  in  the  time  of  Joshua;  and  that  the  first  dating  clause,  "  after  the 
death  of  Joshua,"  must  be  a)i  interpolation,  which  should  be  struck 
out !  And,  stranger  still,  he  argues, — that  because  the  story  of  Ruth 
does  not  belong  till  the  judgeship  of  Eli,  which  is  recorded  (not  in  the 
book  of  Judges,  but)  in  I  Samuel, — therefore  its  dating  (put  at  Ruth  i: 
I,  "Now  it  came  to  pass  in  the  days  when  the  Judges  ruled,"  etc.), 
is  also  spurious,  and  should  be  erased  !  Just  as  if  Eli  and  Samuel  did 
not  belong  among  "the  judges;  "  and  just  as  if  Eli's  judgeship  (because 
forsooth  not  recorded  in  the  book  of  Judges)  was  not  "in  the  days 
when  the  judges  ruled  "  !  Was  ever  greater  folly  than  this  set  forth  as 
bible  criticism  ? 

The  writer  even  quotes  approvingly  (p.  660)  the  random  talk  of  an 
author,  about  the  foul  stories  in  the  last  chapters  of  Judges  (concern- 
ing Micah,  Gibeah,  etc.),  as  being  entirely  incongruous  for  the  times 
of  Naomi  and  the  "  pastoral  idyl  "  of  Ruth.  He  seems  to  be  entirely 
ignorant  that  those  last  chapters  of  the  book  (xvii-xxi)  are  universally 
recognized  as  an  appendix,  belonging  chronologically  at  the  beginning 
of  Judges  (see  xxi:  25),  and  have  nothing  to  do  with  "the  days  when 
judges  ruled," — and  when  Ruth  and  Naomi  are  declared  to  have 
lived  ! 

§  57.  Now  comes  the  climax.  Upon  this  ground  alone, — of  the 
two  books  of  Judges  and  Ruth  alleged  to  be  wrongly  dated  at  their 
opening,  the  writer  before  us  would  blot  out  every  date  given  at  the 
beginning  of  the  books  between  Deuteronomy  and  Chronicles,  as  a 
conjectured  spurious  "canonical  formula"  put  in  by  an  editor  in  unit- 
ing the  books  together,  and  needing  to  be  expunged  !  Was  ever  a 
wholesale  scheme  of  Bible  mutilation  reared  upon  so  flimsy  a  basis  ? 
The  critics  seem  to  be  finding  enough  fault  with  Scripture,  without  the 
need  of  gratuitous  errors  thus  foisted  upon  it. 


THE    JUDGES  241 

We  recite  this  case,  as  a  sample  of  the  treatment  which  the  Bible 
is  receiving,  and  especially  its  chronology,  from  alleged  scholars,  who 
merely  skim  its  surface,  seemingly  bent  on  nothing  but  to  pick  all  the 
flaws  they  can. 


PART  II. 

Origin  of  the  "  480TH  Year"  Reading. 

hi  I  Kings  vi:  /. 

%  58.  What  we  are  here  to  undertake  is,  first,  to  prove  that  no  such 
number  as  480  was  originally  in  the  Scripture  text;  and  secondly,  to 
show  (as  tar  as  we  can)  how  it  comes  to  be  now  there. 

CHAPTER  I. 
No  480TH  Originally. 

We  have  learned  by  our  study  of  the  chronology  of  the  Judges,  that 
the  founding  of  Solomon's  temple  in  his  4th  year  was  580  years  from 
the  exodus,  not  "  the  480th  year"  as  given  in  I  Kings  vi:  i.  It  follows 
that  the  480  must  be  a  corruption  of  the  Hebrew  text;  and  there  is  such 
corruption  of  the  original  text  in  several  Old  Testament  passages, 
especially  in  the  case  of  numbers  (as  at  H  Chron.  xxxvi:  g,  comp.  H 
Kings  xxiv:  8).  The  cause  or  reason  of  such  a  corruption  may  some- 
times be  traced;  and  in  the  case  before  us,  it  becomes  an  interesting 
and  useful  study  to  search  out  (if  we  may)  the  origin  of  this  480  error. 

§  59.  In  our  modem  times  a  new  theory  of  the  exodus  has  come 
into  vogue,  making  it  but  about  300  years,  instead  of  the  "480th  year" 
before  the  temple,  /.  e.,  about  B.  C.  1300.  This  view  has  been  set 
forth  by  Brugsch  and  other  Egyptologists,  as  a  supposed  necessity 
arising  from  their  study  of  the  monuments.  The  large  number  of 
Bible  scholars  who  follow  chronologically  these  speculations  of  the  ar- 
chaeologists, of  course  reject  "  the  480th  year  "  of  I  Kings  as  altogether 
too  large.  On  the  contrary,  we  show  by  Egyptology  itself,  that  this 
"480th  year"  is  a  corruption  100  years  too  small.  The  number  of 
those  who  still  adhere  to  "the  480th  year"  as  correct,  is  very  small. 

§  60.  We  know  for  a  certainty,  that  the  480  could  not  have  been  in 
the  Hebrew  text  in  the  New  Testament  times.  For,  not  only  does  the 
testimony  of  Paul  (in  Acts  xiii:  17-22)  prove  this,  as  we  have  shown, 
but  also  the  testimony  of  Josephus  (written  about  the  same  time),  to- 
gether with  earlier  Jewish  historians,  is  decisive  on  the  point.  Jose- 
phus and  Paul  in  the  first  century,  as  well  as  Theophilus,  Clemens 
Alex.,  Hippolytus,  Julius  Africanus  (A.  D.  200),  and  other  early  chroni- 
clers of  the  church,  all  found  no  such  number  there  in  Kings;  but  all 
their  reckonings  of  the  Bible  times  are  based  upon  the  larger  number,  580 
ears,  between  the  exodus  and  the  temple.     Let  us  examine  this  matter 


242  PERIOD    D 

particularly  in  regard  to  Josephus,  the  most  careful  and  reliable  of  all 
ancient  wi'iters,  in  his  work  of  rehearsing  fully  the  substance  of  the  Old 
Testament  records.     (See  here,  §  loo.) 

In  his  "Antiquities  of  the  Jews,"  he  recounts  to  us  in  full  detail  the 
history  found  in  the  Old  Testament;  and  his  work  contains  (he  says  in 
his  preface)  "  all  our  antiquities  and  the  constitution  of  our  govern- 
ment, as  interpreted  out  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures."  Using  thus  the 
original  Hebrew  text,  as  he  does,  we  can  see  from  his  statements  what 
his  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  did,  and  what  it  did  not  contain. 

§  6i.  When  he  comes  to  the  founding  of  the  temple  at  I  Kings,  6th 
chapter,  he  gives  very  explicit  datings  of  that  event,  based  on  the  num- 
ber 580  (as  we  will  presently  show);  and  he  manifests  no  knowledge 
whatever  of  any  such  contrary  number  or  reckoning  as  the  "480"  now 
found  in  that  passage.  In  several  other  parts  of  his  work,  and  espe- 
cially in  his  other  work,  "The  Jewish  War,"  he  reiterates  that  same 
larger  reckoning  of  the  interval  between  the  Exodus  and  the  temple; 
and  everywhere  he  is  in  utter  ignorance  of  any  such  lesser  reckoning 
480,  as  ever  seen  or  heard  of  in  his  time.  Therefore,  it  is  simply  im- 
possible that  this  number  could  have  been  in  the  Hebrew  text  as  used 
by  Josephus,  as  well  as  by  Paul,  by  Africanus,  and  by  other  ancient 
Bible  scholars. 

We  must  here  remark,  that  the  chronology  of  Josephus,  when  care- 
fully studied,  is  a  simple  and  harmonious  system,  drawn  from  the  num- 
bers given  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  as  he  understood  them;  and  it  is  not 
any  such  jumble  of  conflicting  dates  as  has  been  imposed  upon  him  by 
diverse  editors,  trying  to  amend,  but  sadly  corrupting  his  text.  A 
thorough  sifting  of  his  work  has  led  to  a  "  Restoration  of  Josephus  "  in 
respect  to  datings  (which  see);  showing  a  methodical  and  beautiful 
harmony  of  the  whole,  accordant  with  the  Hebrew  text  as  interpreted 
by  him.     We  shall  see  parts  of  this  restored  chronology  as  we  proceed. 

§  62.  Josephus  uniformly  makes  the  interval  "  592  years"  from  the 
exodus  to  the  temple  begun  "in  the  4th  year  of  Solomon's  reign."* 
But  how  does  this  comport  with  the  "612  years  "  found  in  his  writings? 
Josephus  is  thought  by  many  to  be  vacillating  in  his  chronology,  and  to 
have  other  numbers  besides  the  592  years  for  the  interval  between  the 
exodus  and  the  temple.  For  instance,  the  612  is  a  value  named.  But 
this  number  is  given  by  Josephus  (at  Ant.  20,  x,  i),  not  as  a  length  of 
reigns,  but  as  the  length  of  priesthoods  from  Aaron  through  Zadok  to 
the  end  of  ^building  (I  Kings  ix:  10);  though  he  loosely  speaks  of  it  as 
if  reaching  only  to  the  building  of  the  temple.  Zadok's  priesthood, 
re-established  by  Solomon  (I  Kings  ii:  35)  is  included  in  the  612 
years  (as  required  by  the  number  of  priests  given,  13;  see  Antiq.  5,  xi,  5, 
and  8,  i,  3);  and  it  covers  probably  a  large  part  of  Solomon's  reign. 

*See  Appendix  G,  in  "  Restor.  of  Jos.,"  §  90. 


THE    JUDGES  243 

Josephus  no  doubt  understood  it  as  thus  covering  the  "  20  years  time  " 
that  Solomon  spent  in  building.  (Antiq.  8,  v,  i,  3,  I  Kings  vii,  i),  from  the 
4th  year  to  the  24th  of  Solomon.  This  is  shown  by  the  reduced  period 
"466  years"  (given  in  the  same  passage  as  the  612)  for  the  length  of 
priesthoods  to  the  return  from  captivity — in  place  of  Josephus'  whole 
491  years  (War.  6,  iv,  8).  Thus  he  understood  his  592  as  in  agreement 
with  the  612 — 20. 

It  is  plain  that  this  closing  episode  of  Josephus'  Antiquities  (20,  x,) 
is  a  sort  of  Appendix,  giving  the  Priest  Record,  as  drawn  from  the 
Jewish  archives.  It  was  not  a  part  of  Josephus'  own  chronology.  And 
he  in  fact  misunderstood  it,  as  we  show  in  our  "  Restoration  of  Jose- 
phus." The  612  thus  somewhat  obscured  in  meaning,  Josephus  men- 
tions in  one  other  place  (Apion  ii,  2),  as  if  ending  at  Solomon's  temple; 
but  whenever  speaking  exactly  he  has  his  own  592  years'  interval.  (See 
Appendix  A,  ^  85.) 

The  612  Years  in  Josephus. 

§  63.  The  612  years  is,  in  fact,  a  wonderful  confirmation  of  the  original 
reckoning  to  the  temple  as  built  after  580  years;  it  being  in  exact  ac- 
cordance with  that  Scripture  dating.  For,  the  Bible  reckoning  of  Jose- 
phus in  the  war  makes  ("  1030" — "  639"=)  491  years  from  the  end  of 
captivity  back  to  Solomon's  finished  temple,  or  (491-1-7^498)  to  the  tem- 
ple founded;  while  the  Scripture  makes  580  years  before  that  to  the  exo- 
dus. And  the  total  of  these  is  (498-1-580=)  1078  years  from  the  end  of 
captivity  back  to  the  exodus,  /.  e.,  from  B.  C.  513  to  1591.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Priest  Record,  with  its  612,  gives  ("612  "-f"466"=)  1078 
also,  the  same  number  of  years  for  the  same  interval  of  events.  How 
striking  the  coincidence!  How  marked  the  proof,  that  the  Priest 
Record,  and  Josephus,  and  Scripture,  all  rest  on  the  same  basis  of 
chronology! 

Thus  the  Priest  Record  reckoning  seems  to  have  been  developed 
historically  as  follows: 


s 

egins 

iple 

ed. 

P5     S    ^ 

G   . 

ii           .n  ca         — 

—     0 

ll%fl    I 

^3 

«          r,       a^ 

H 

Scripture  Reckoning, 
ubilee  Reckoning... 

580     -f8+         466 

+17+7=  1 

-  1078 

588           +            490 

Priest  Reckoning.  .  .  . 

S  588         +       24+466 

=  j 

-  1078 

\       612          +466 

=  \ 

1  i2-f-     580    +8+     12+466 

+  5+7=1 

Josephus'  War 

J              592              +20+471 
1              592  +                491 

XTA 

logo 

I             592  +  8+        490 

J 

244  PERIOD    D 

§  64.  We  thus  see  how  a  misunderstanding  of  the  Priest  Record  has 
misconstrued  its  "6i2years"  of  priests  ending  during  Solomon's  reign, 
as  if  they  reached  only  to  the  founding  of  the  temple,  whereas  they  in- 
clude 580  years  only  down  to  that  event.  Here  then  we  have  this 
earliest  form  of  the  Jewish  chronology  (evidently  arranged  before 
Josephus),  giving  us  the  580  years  as  the  correct  reckoning  at  I  Kings 
vi:  I.  This  Priest  Record  thus  confirms  and  vindicates  our  revision  of 
the  text,  in  accordance  with  Paul's  account  in  the  13th  chapter  of  Acts. 
It  was  only  by  mistaking  the  distance  by  which  the  "612"  overlapped 
Solomon,  that  Josephus  got  his  "592  years"  at  the  founding  of  the 
temple,  in  place  of  the  correct  580  years  which  the  Priest  Record  had 
intended. 

The  great  question  now  is  this:  How  was  it  possible  for  Josephus 
to  give  the  "592"  as  his  only  reckoning,  if  his  Hebrew  Bible,  which 
was  his  only  authority,  gave  the  "480th  year"  as  we  now  have  it  (at 
I  Kings  vi:  i)?  Or  how  any  better,  if  the  Lxx  version,  which  he  must 
have  known,  gave  the  "440th  year"  as  we  now  have  it?  Or  how  any 
better,  if  the  I  Kings  vi:  i,  then  read  or  meant  580  years  as  we  allege? 

The  Original  980. 

§  65.  Our  answer  is:  The  I  Kings  vi:  i,  did  not  originally  read  as 
it  now  does,  namely: 

"  And  it  came  to  pass,  in  the  four  hundred  and  eightieth  year  of  the 
exodus  [Heb.  and  Gr.'\  of  the  children  of  Israel  from  the  land  of  Egypt, 
in  the  fourth  year  of  Solomon's  reign  over  Israel,  *  *  *  that  he 
built  [Rev.  Marg.^  the  house  of  the  Lord." 

But  it  probably  read  or  was  understood  thus — with  the  part  in 
brackets  [  ]  at  first  as  a  mere  gloss  in  the  margin: 

"  And  it  came  to  pass  [in  the  nine  hundred  and  eightieth  year  from 
foreign  affliction  from  the  land  of  Egypt],  in  the  fourth  year  of  Solo- 
mon's reign,     *     *     *     that  he  built  the  house  of  the  Lord." 

Whether  the  clause  in  brackets  [  ]  was  in  Josephus'  day  actually  in 
the  text,  or  was  only  a  note  put  by  some  one  in  the  mai'gin,  or  was 
simply  a  traditional  understanding  of  the  date  at  that  point,  we  do  not 
here  say.  We  only  claim  that  in  Josephus'  time  the  dating  of  the 
temple  was  so  understood. 

§66.  That  well  known  "980  years"  from  foreign  affliction,  as 
handed  down,  had  been  understood  to  date  from  the  same  point  as  the 
"400  years  "  of  foreign  "  affliction  "  foretold  in  Gen.  xv:  13;  viz.,  from 
the  mocking  by  the  Egyptian  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxi:  9-11),  just  after  the 
weaning  of  Isaac;  which  was  when  Isaac  was  five  years  old,  /.  e.,  30 
years  after  Abraham's  arrival  in  Canaan  (980  years  before  B.  C.  ion, 
viz.,  in  B.  C.  1991). 

Therefore,   as  the  "400  years"  of  affliction  from  the  mocking  of 


THE   JUDGES  245 

Isaac  reached  to  the  exodus  out  of  Egypt  (see  in  Period  C),  so  the  "980 
years  "  contained  (980  —  400  =)  580  years  after  the  exodus  to  the  found- 
ing of  the  temple  in  B.  C.  loii.  And  the  offering  up  of  Isaac  on  Mount 
Moriah  being  understood  as  7  years  later  than  the  mocking  (viz.,  at  12 
years  of  age),  the  same  8go  years  reached  thence  to  the  finishing  of  the 
temple  on  Mount  Moriah  yyears  after  the  founding  (viz.,  in  B.  C.  1004). 
The  double  dating  (to  the  temple  as  begun  and  as  finished)  seems  ac- 
cordant with  the  exact  language  used — after  so  long  "he  built  the  tem- 
ple," Moreover,  the  g8o  years  were  just  20  Jubilee  periods  (of  49  years 
each),  from  the  year  after  the  offering  of  Isaac  to  the  year  of  dedica- 
tion following  the  finished  temple,  /.  f.,  from  B.  C.  1983  to  1003. 

§  67.  That  the  age  of  Isaac  at  being  brought  to  the  altar  was  12 
years  (not  25  as  some  put  it),  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  Jewish  tra- 
dition thenceforward  made  this  the  age  at  which  youth  were  brought 
to  the  temple  service,  as  seen  in  the  case  of  our  Lord  (Luke  ii:  42).  It 
is  moreover  obvious,  from  the  childish  submission  of  Isaac,  and  from 
his  being  called  "  the  lad,"  and  being  so  easily  "  bound  and  laid  on  the 
altar  "  by  his  aged  father.  (Gen.  xxii:  5-9.)  Such  then  seems  to  have 
been  clearly  the  original  understanding  of  the  temple's  date,  as  "980 
years"  after  Isaac,  or  "580  years"  after  the  exodus,  as  seen  in  the 
reckoning  of  Paul.     (Gal.  iii:  7;  Acts  xiii:  17-22.) 

There  were  reasons  why  this  particular  dating,  "980  years,"  was 
impressed  upon  the  Jewish  mind,  and  minuted  (as  text  or  as  gloss)  at 
I  Kings  vi:  i,  while  there  are  in  the  Bible  so  few  long  comprehensive 
reckonings  like  this.  The  sacrifice  of  Isaac  was  a  marked  event,  typi- 
cal of  the  Messiah;  and  the  after  selection  of  that  very  spot,  on  Mount 
Moriah,  as  the  site  of  the  temple,  where  sacrifice  was  continually  to  be 
offered,  and  where  Messiah  was  to  manifest  himself,  was  an  intended 
and  notable  concurrence,* — timed  seemingly  on  purpose  at  980  years, 
as  a  peculiar  and  significant  number  in  Jewish  Chronology. 


*That  the  coincidence  of  place  was  specially  noted  and  marked, 
appears  not  only  from  the  scripture  account,  giving  name  to  the  spot  as 
"the  mount  of  the  Lord"  (Gen.  xxii:  2,  14:  II  Chron.  iii:  i),  and  from 
Josephus,  who  repeatedly  declares  that  the  temple  was  built  on  the 
spot  where  Isaac  was  offered  (Antiq.  i,  xiii;  2,  etc.),  but  also  fi^om  the 
identification  which  the  Samaritans  afterward  attempted  of  Mt.  Mo- 
riah withMt.  Gerizim.  (See  Bib.  Sacra,  Oct.  1868,  p.  765.)  The  great 
wonder  expressed  in  that  article,  that  no  mention  was  made  in  Jewish 
literature  of  the  striking  coincidence  of  place,  is  somewhat  met  by  our 
exhibit  here  of  Wxft  dated  inft'i'tuj/  (980  years)  as  the  early  Jewish  ex- 
pression of  interest  in  the  coincidence.  The  writer  of  that  article  (at 
P-  375)  is  staggered  at  the  improbability  of  God's  countenancing  such 
a  chance  for  local  superstition.  But  certainly  it  was  not  beneath  the 
dignity  of  Divine  Providence  to  encourage  such  a  typical  coincidence 
of  time  and  place  prospective  of  the  Messiah,  for  the  strengthening  of 
Jewish  faith  in  those  crude  times, — as  witness  the  "  seventy  weeks  "  of 
Daniel  given  for  the  same  purpose. 


246  PERIOD    D 

§68.  For,  this  980  is  just  twice  490  years,  or  twice  the  "seventy 
weeks  "  of  Daniel;  that  is,  twice  \o  Jubilee  periods  of  49  years  each;  and 
twice  7  generations  of  70  years  each  (as  generations  were  then  reckoned, 
Psa.  xc:  10),  making  the  "  14  generations  "  of  Mat.  i:  17  (/.  c,  14X70  = 
g8o).  This  14  generation  arrangement  at  the  opening  of  Matthew,  is  a 
striking  proof  of  our  view,  that  the  time  from  Abraham  (and  Isaac)  to 
David  (and  Solomon's  temple)  was  400  +  580  =  980  years,  not  400  + 
480  =  880  as  the  shortened  reckoning  makes  it.  (See  our  exposition  of 
Mat.  i:  17,  in  "Chronology  of  the  Judges,  here  §  10.) 

Jewish  scholars  always  made  much  of  this  Jubilee  reckoning,  by  49 
and  490  years,  as  before  shown.  (See  Period  E,  §  69.)  In  their  various 
writings  they  reckoned  Jubilee  periods  from  the  creation  downward. 
And  such  a  marked  interval  as  the  twice  490  years  seen  to  exist  between 
Isaac  on  Mount  Moriah  and  the  temple  built  on  Mount  Moriah,  would 
naturally  awaken  their  enthusiasm,  and  cause  a  noting  of  that  partic- 
ular epoch  at  I  Kings  vi:  i — in  continuance  of  the  "400  years  "  of  it 
ending  at  the  exodus.  This  will  well  account  for  a  "980  years  "  put  as 
text  or  marginal  note  in  the  early  Hebrew  of  that  passage  in  Kings. 

And  thus  we  have  the  original  of  I  Kings  vi:  i,  without  any  ' '  480th  " 
in  the  text,  as  now,  but  probably  with  a  note  in  its  margin,  saying, 
"980  years  from  foreign  affliction  ";  which  was  understood  as  meaning 
,(980 — 400^)  "  580  years  from  the  exodus  out  of  Egypt." 

§  69.  But  this  original  understanding  of  the  matter  had  been  lost 
■sight  of  in  Josephus'  time  (except  as  Paul  was  inspired  to  accuracy). 
Eor,  we  find  Josephus,  contrary  to  previous  tradition,  saying  of  Isaac 
at  the  time  he  was  offered  on  Mount  Moriah,  "  Now,  Isaac  was  twenty- 
five  years  old."  (Antiq.  i,  xiii:  2.)  That  is,  he  makes  that  sacrificial 
event  to  be,  no  longer  seven,  but  twenty  years  after  Isaac's  5  years, 
when  the  "400  years"  of  affliction  began.  So  that,  he  has  there  but 
(400 — 20=)  380  of  the  400  years  left,  instead  of  the  (400 — 7=)  393  before 
understood. 

This  change  of  13  years  made  him  say:  The  still  known  "980 
years"  from  the  Isaac  sacrifice  to  the  temple  built  on  the  same  Mount 
Moriah — minus  the  380  (left  of  the  40o)=6oo  years  from  the  exodus  to 
the  dedication  of  the  temple;  which  is  "  592  years  "  to  the  founding  of 
■the  temple  8  years  before.  Here  at  length  we  find  the  origin  of 
Josephus'  error,  in  putting  592  years  instead  of  the  right  580. 

§  70.  When  for  some  reason  Josephus  had  changed  the  traditional 
and  correct  age  of  Isaac  at  being  offered,  from  12  to  25  years,  his  error 
of  chronology  would  have  been  13  years;  i.  e.,  593  after  the  exodus 
instead  of  580.  But  he  at  the  same  time  made  another  mistake  of  i 
year,  in  treating  the  terminus  of  the  980  (and  so  of  his  600)  as  at  the 
dedication  instead  of  the  coinpletion  of  the  temple,  8  years  instead  of 
7  years  after  the  founding,  so  getting  (600—8)  instead  of  (600—7).     He 


THE    JUDGES  247 

was  thus  confounding  the  980  of  sacrifice,  from  B.  C.  1984  to  1004,  with 
the  980  of  Jubilee  reckoning,  from  B.  C.  1983  to''ioo3.  And  by  this 
means,  he  made  his  excess  of  chronology  12  years  (not  13),  from  12 
years  to  the  25th  year  of  Isaac,  /.  <?.,  from  B.  C.  1591  to  1603  for  the 
exodus;  and  thus  he  exactly  offset  (or  caused)  his  12  years  deficiency 
of  reduction  from  the  612  (reduced  20  years  instead  of  32) — so  leaving 
also  a  void  of  12  years  at  the  end  of  the  "466  years."  (See  Rest,  of 
Jos.,  §  27.) 

He  took  his  592  as  the  612 — 20,  in  the  way  we  have  seen,  and  we  can 
account  for  his  doing  so;  for  he  certainly  had  no  Scripture  number  to 
contradict  it.  And  it  is  evident  that  in  Josephus'  day  there  could  not 
be  in  I  Kings  vi:  i,  any  such  number  as  "480,"  or  even  "580";  but 
there  might  be  simply  the  "980  years"  from  Isaac,  either  in  the  text, 
or  more  likely  as  a  mere  note  in  the  margin.  And  frotn  this  "980 
years  "  he  must  have  worked  out  his  592  years,  as  we  have  here  seen. 
Which  number  of  his  differs  from  the  true  original  580  years  from  the 
exodus  only  because  he  put  th,e  Mt.  Moriah  sacrifice  at  25  instead  of 
the  correct  12  years  of  Isaac's  age  (with  also  i  year  of  error  at  the 
dedication). 

And  thus  Josephus  has,  from  Abraham's  arrival  in  Canaan  25  years 
to  Isaac's  birth  +  25  to  Mt.  Moriah  -(-  380  to  the  Exodus  +  592  to  the 
temple=io22  years  (/.  e.,  430+592)  back  to  Abraham's  arrival,  as  he 
himself  gives  it.     (Antiq.  8,  iii:  i,  corrupted  1020.) 

See  Josephus'  whole  chronology,  at  "  Rest,  of  Jos."     §  18. 

The  592  reckoning  found  previous  to  Josephus,  in  the  Jewish  his- 
torians, Eupolemus  and  Demetrius,  may  have  originated  the  error, 
which  Josephus  only  followed.*  But  the  612  of  the  Priest  Record  in 
Josephus  (Antiq.  20,  x:  i)  was  no  error,  but  only  an  adaptation  of  the 
true  "  580  years"  itself,  as  we  have  shown. 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Septuagint  "440." 

§  71.  The  error  of  Josephus  in  his  "  592  years  "  arose  from  his  for- 
getting that  the  original  "980  years  "  began  with  the  "  400  years  "  of 
foreign  affliction,  not  with  the  offering  of  Isaac.  But  others,  while 
not  thus  shoving  down  the  980  as  beginning  later  than  the  400,  yet  had 
long  before  Josephus  adopted  a  double  reckoning  of  the  "430  years  "  of 
sojourning;  which  led  on  to  the  present  corruption  of  the  text.     Thus: 

Since,  in  Ex.  xii:  40,  the  "430  years"  is  called  "the  sojourning  of 
the  children  of  Israel,"  an  opinion  arose  that  this  number  began 
strictly  with  the  sojourning  of  Israel  himself  (or  Jacob)  rather  than  of 

*  See  Appendix  G,  in  "  Restor.  of  Jos.,"  §  93. 


248  PERIOD    D 

Abraham;  that  is,  when  he  left  home  for  Haran  (Gen.  xxvii:  43),  taken 
as  at  56  years  of  his  age,  or  (130 — 56=)  74  years  before  he  stood  before 
Pharaoh  (Gen.  xlvii:g).  This  made  that  period  of  "sojourn"  begin 
(215 — 74=)  141  years  later;  or  25  from  Abraham's  coming  -|-  60  from 
Isaac's  bii-th  (Gen.  xxv:  26)  +  56  years  from  Jacob's  birth=i4i  years 
later  than  Abraham's  coming  to  Canaan,  the  original  date  of  sojourn. 
(Appendix  C,  §  96.) 

This  delay  of  141  years  in  beginning  the  "430  years"  of  sojourn 
carried  down  its  ending  to  141  years  after  the  exodus,  viz.,  to  the 
judgeship  of  Ehud,  at  the  end  of  foreign  servitude,  after  the  children  of 
Israel  se7ved  Eglon,  king  of  Moab,  18  years  "  (Jud.  iii:  14).  For  the 
years  from  the  exodusoare  as  follows:  Moses  40-|-Joshua  25-l-anarchy 
lo+Chushan  8+Othniel  40+Eglon  i8=total,  141  years.  (See  Chron. 
of  the  Judges,  here  §1,  5.)  And  that  this  ended  foreign  servitude, 
see  Appendix  B,  ^  88. 

§72.  The  141  years  thus  taken  from  the  beginning  of  the  "430 
years  "  of  sojourning  and  added  to  their  end,  constituted  a  second  reck- 
oning of  the  430  years,  viz.,  from  "Israel"  to  Ehud;  with  the  first 
reckoning  still  retained  (Ex.  xii:  40,  comp.  ver.  41),  in  accordance  with 
the  Jewish  fondness  for  double  recko7iing  of  dates,  of  which  we 
are  having  constant  examples  as  we  proceed.  (See  here  g  66,  etc.) 
And  this  second  "430 years,"  from  Israel  to  Ehud  was  looked  upon  as 
a  period  of  "sojourning"  and  of  servitude  to  foreigners,  mostly  in 
Egypt,  and  also  in  Canaan.  So  that  the  Lxx  translators  put  in  the 
gloss  at  Ex,  xii:  40:  "they  sojourned  in  Egypt  and  in  Canami,'"  plac- 
ing the  Canaan  sojourn  after  rather  than  before  that  of  Egypt.  By 
thus  making  an  after  sojourn  in  Canaan  cover  a  part  of  the  ' '  430 
years,"  they  plainly  show  their  method  of  carrying  down  that  period 
below  the  Exodus.  (See  Appendix,  g  88.)  Moreover,  those  translators 
finish  out  the  book  of  Joshua  (or  the  "hexateuch  ")  to  reach  down  to 
this  era  of  Ehud,  as  we  see  in  the  Lxx,  at  Josh,  xxiv:  33,  onwards.  (See 
Appendix  B,  S  90.) 

Knowing  still  the  (980—400=)  580  years,  dating  from  the  exodus  to 
the  temple,  but  using  the  new  era  of  Ehud,  141  years  after  the 
exodus,  as  an  era  of  ended  foreign  servitude  or  of  independence,  the 
Jews  now  came  to  speak  of  the  (580 — 141^  "  440th  year  "  of  \h\%inde- 
pendence  era  (after  the  lengthened  hexateuch)  as  the  date  when 
Solomon  commenced  the  temple. 

§73.  The  use  of  this  "440th  year"  of  independence  was  en- 
couraged, not  only  by  the  fact  that  this  number  440  expressed  the 
years  of  comparative  freedom  downward  from  Ehud  with  141  years 
of  unsettled  condition  left  out,  but  also  by  the  further  fact,  noticed  by 
the  Rabbis,  that  this  441  would  likewise  express  the  reigns  and  judge- 
ships from  the  exodus  to  the  temple  with  the  interregnums  of  foreign 
invasion  omitted  as  of  no  account  in  Israel's  nationality.     Thus,  the 


THE    JUDGES  249 

anarchy  after  Joshua  was  lo  years-[-Chushan  8-f-Eglon  i8-|-Jabin  20+ 
Midian  7+Ammon  i8+Philistines  40  (at  Jud.  xiii:  i)+2o  years  at  I  Sam. 
vii:' 2=141  years  of  total  invasion  to  be  dropped  out  from  580,  leaving 
the  "440th  year."     (See  Chron.  of  the  Judges  here,  §  5.) 

The  originators  of  this  "440th  year"  reckoning  may  therefore  have 
intended  to  include  the  141  years  of  separate  foreign  invasion  (all  the 
way  down  to  king  Saul)  in  with  the  Egyptian  oppression,  leaving  the 
"440th  year"  to  express  only  the  4^oth  year  of  reigns  or  of  Jewish 
supremac}-.     They  thus  tiieaiit  no  shortening  of  the  chronology. 

§  74.  This  "440th  year"  of  freedom  from  servitude  or  foreign 
"affliction"  (Gen.  xv:  13),  was  a  gloss  in  the  margin  of  I  Kings  vi:  i, 
put  as  a  current  and  correct  application  of  "  980  years  "  found  in  the 
margin  of  other  Hebrew  copies.  The  Lxx  editors,  choosing  to  insert 
this  (as  a  supposed  correct  date)  in  their  translation — ^it  seemed  to  them 
more  popular  and  patriotic  to  mention  merely  the  length  of  their  inde- 
pendence, than  to  include  the  long  period  of  their  affliction  under 
foreign  oppression.  And  these  Greek  translators  being  in  Egypt,  and 
translating  for  Egyptian  use,  would  naturally  make  the  national  life  of 
Israel  as  short  as  they  could  at  the  building  of  their  one  great 
temple;  because  this  would  best  comport  with  Egyptian  ideas  of  piety, 
the  earliest  work  of  all  their  kings  being  the  erection  and  adornment 
of  magnificent  temples  to  the  gods.  The  "  440th  year  "  of  independ- 
ence put  at  the  founding  of  Solomon's  temple,  answered  this  purpose 
better  than  would  the  retention  of  the  "980  years"  from  foreign 
affliction. 

§  75.  But  in  choosing  this  "440th  year"  reading  of  the  margin  for 
insertion  in  their  Greek  translation,  they  mistook  its  meaning,  and  in- 
stead of  its  exact  Hebrew  sense  "440th  year  from  servitude,'''  or 
foreign  affliction,  they  rendered  it  into  Greek  as  it  now  stands,  "440th 
year  of  Exodus  from  Egypt'' — supposing  that  to  be  the  thought  in- 
tended. They  thus  innocently  but  carelessly  dropped  out  141  years 
from  the  chronology.  For,  while  the  inditer  of  the  gloss  correctly 
meant  "440th  year  oi  final  freedom  from  foreign  servitude  in  general 
at  Ehud,  the  translators,  by  giving  it  as  the  special  exodus  from  Egypt, 
have  thrown  out  all  the  141  years  between.  Such  was  the  Septuagint 
when  it  was  issued,  over  200  years  B.  C.  But  still,  there  was  no  such 
number  in  the  Hebrew,  and  Paul  and  Josephus,  and  writers  generally, 
were  guided  by  reference  to  the  "980  years  "  gloss  handed  down  from 
the  first. 

We  here  see  that  the  Septuagint  error  of  shortening  the  chronology 
arose  from  a  forgetting  of  the  double  reckoning  of  the  "430  years,"  as 
ending  at  Ehud  as  well  as  at  the  Exodus.  The  Ehud  era  being  lost 
sight  of,  the  "440th  year"  got  put  back  from  that  place  as  if  beginning 
at  the  Exodus.  And  so  the  changed  expression,  "exodus  from  Egypt," 
crept  into  the  Septuagint  text. 


250  PERIOD    D 

§76.  A  Presumption.  It  may  well  be  presumed  that  it  was  not  the 
Lxx  translators  themselves  who  got  in  the  changed  expression  "  exodus 
from  Egypt  "  (though  they  did  insert  the  "440th  year  "  gloss);  but  that 
the  change  of  expression  was  a  cor7'uption  that  crept  in  long  afterward. 
Otherwise,  there  could  not  be  (as  there  is  both  in  Josephus  and  in  the 
New  Testament)  an  absence  of  all  knowledge  of  the  shorter  reckoning 
between  the  exodus  and  the  temple,  while  the  longer  reckoning  is  so 
constantly  reiterated  as  drawn  from  the  Old  Testament  itself.  How 
and  why  this  reduced  reckoning  came  in  is  the  question.  There  is  no 
trace  of  it  till  it  is  cited  by  Clemens  Alex,  about  A.  D.  200.  We  quote 
from  J.  Schwartz  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  (July,  1888,  p.  447): 

"  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  flourished  about  A.  D.  192,  or  over  100 
years  before  Eusebius,  among  a  mass  of  undigested  extracts  from 
chronologists  before  his  time  (contained  in  Book  I,  chap,  xxi  of  his 
'  Stromata'),  gives  the  following  fragment:  '  From  the  birth  of  Moses 
till  the  captivity,  972  years  *  *  *  From  the  reign  of  David  till  the 
captivity,  452  years  6  months.'     {Ante-Nicene  Lib.,  Vol.  iv,  p.  432.)"" 

These  "452)^  years"  are  plainly  the  length  of  the  Jewish  kings 
from  the  endoi  David  to  the  end  of  Jehoiachin  in  captivity.  (See  Rest, 
of  Jos.  §  52,  53.)  And  this  is  the  correct  Scripture  value,  viz.,  from  B. 
C.  1013  to  561=452  years-|->^  year  from  spring  to  autumn;  just  as 
Josephus  (War.,  6,  x:  i)  gives  it,  "  470;^  "—David 40+22  last  years  of 
Jehoiachin=the  "452^^  "  here.  Josephus  also  has  it  as  (452>^+David 
40+22  of  Saul=)  "  514^^  years  "  for  the  whole  duration  of  the  kings 
after  Samuel,  (so  he  says  in  Antiq.  10,  viii:  4,  with  6,  xiv:  9). 

§  77.  Thus  this  fragment  in  Clemens  Alex,  gives  (972— 452>^=)5i9>^ 
years  from  the  end  of  David  back  to  the  birth  of  Moses,  which  is 
(519 — 80=)  439  years  back  to  the  exodus  from  the  death  of  David,  and 
this  gives  440  years  to  the  2d  of  Solomon  alone,  regarded  as  the  4th  of 
Solomon's  whole  reigning  at  the  founding  of  the  temple.  Here,  then, 
we  have  the  first  intimation  anywhere  in  history  of  such  a  shortened 
reckoning  as  the  "  440th  year  "  from  the  exodus  to  the  temple. 

This  shows  that  at  some  time  (the  reader  may  judge  when)  before 
Clement  in  the  2d  century,  the  Lxx  had  received  this  exodus  interpreta- 
tion. Its  previous  reading,  the  "440th  year  of  the  exit  of  the  children 
of  Israel  ivom  foret'g/i  afflktioji  "  (meaning  from  Ehud  downward),  had 
very  naturally  been  misunderstood  as  meaning  "from  the  exodus  out 
of  Egypt,"  and  no  doubt,  by  a  gloss  in  the  margin,  the  text  itself  be- 
came corrupted  to  its  present  foriu.  There  may  have  been  no  inten- 
tional corruption,  but  only  a  natural  misunderstanding  of  the  meaning. 
And  the  new  reading,  as  apparently  plainer  and  better,  would  soon  find 
its  way  into  all  new  copies.  So  that,  as  we  have  no  very  early  manu- 
scripts of  the  Lxx,  we  find  no  copies  with  the  earlier  reading. 


THE   JUDGES  251 


CHAPTER  III. 


The  Hebrew  "480." 

§  78.  When  the  Lxx  had  thus  become  unintentionally  corrupted  to 
its  present  form,  the  original  Hebrew  was  easily  misunderstood,  for  it 
probably  had  in  its  text  no  back  date  at  I  Kings  vi:  i,  except  (perhaps) 
a  marginal  gloss,  saying  "  980 years  from  foreign  affliction,"  abreviated, 
it  may  be,  to  read  simply  "980  years."  Its  anciently  known  reference 
to  Isaac  being  forgotten,  it  was  thought  that  the  Lxx's  number  must  be 
more  nearly  correct.  So  that,  a  conjectural  emendation  was  inserted 
[480]  for  the  980,  bringing  it  into  nearer  agreement  with  the  Lxx.  This 
may  have  been  at  first  a  mere  gloss  in  the  margin,  but  as  appearing  to 
be  a  very  reasonable  correction,  it  would  soon  find  its  way  into  the 
text. 

§  79.  There  were  reasons  why,  instead  of  the  Lxx's  "440"  being 
adopted  into  the  Hebrew,  there  was  simply  the  change  made  of  a 
figure  (980  to  480.)  The  Lxx  now  having  come  to  read  "  in  the  440th 
year  of  exit  (or  exodus)  of  the  children  of  Israel  from  Egypt,"  was  un- 
derstood as  really  denoting  the  440th  year  of  full  exit  atid  entrance  ta 
Canaan,  requiring  the  addition  of  the  40  years  in  the  wilderness  to  give 
the  whole  interval.  And  when  the  reigns  and  judgeships  were  now 
added  up,  as  being  the  items  supposed  by  some  to  be  alone  included, 
they  were  found  to  be  more  accurately  a  total  of  the  "480th  year," — 
the  previously  supposed  141  years  of  interregnums  being  more  correctly 
but  loi  years.  For,  the  "  40  years  "  at  Jud.  xiii:  i,  were  seen  to  cover 
only  20  years  before  the  40  years  of  Eli.  So  that  there  was  in  the 
book  of  Judges  (anarchy  lo-j-Chushan  8-|-Eglon  i8+Jabin  20+Midian 
7+Ammon  i8+Philistines  20^)  loi  years  of  invasion,  taken  from  the 
full  amount  580,  and  leaving  the  "  480th  year  "  which  has  been  put  into 
the  present  Hebrew  text. 

^  80.  The  total  of  the  numbers  given  us  in  Scripture  from  the 
exodus  to  the  temple  is  certainly  580  years,  as  shown  in  our  "Chro- 
nology of  the  Judges."  (fj  i,  4.)  If  that  total  number  was  ever  inserted 
in  the  Hebrew  text,  as  a  gloss  rightly  derived  from  "980"  (minus  400 
years  of  affliction) — then  the  present  "480th"  of  the  Hebrew  text  is 
simply  a  corruption  from  that  "  580th  "  by  the  mere  accidental  change 
(in  some  copy  giving  the  numbers  by  letters)  of  5  into  4,  or  (in  Hebrew) 
n  into  "I  ;  i.  e.,  the  mere  failure  to  insert  one  slight  little  dash  (i). 
But  one  way  or  another,  there  was  now  made  an  actual  corruption  or 
reduction  of  one  hundred  years  from  the  chronology — a  result  never 
known  or  heard  of  before  that  time.  When  and  by  whom  was  the 
present  corruption  made  ? 

Eusebius  (A.  D.  320)  is  the  earliest  writer  found  to  liave  any  knowl- 


252 


PERIOD    D 


edge  of  the  "480th  year"  reckoning.*  He  says  (Hist.  ch.  16,  Migne, 
p.  L50):  "  From  the  Exodus  to  the  Temple  are  600  [580]  years  accord- 
ing to  the  Apostle,  but  by  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  is  put  as  480  years." 
He  goes  on  to  give  the  Christian  fathers  before  him,  Africanus, 
Clement,  and  Theophilus,  as  also  all  having  the  longer  reckoning. 
But  he  himself  abandons  this  "  Apostolic  tradition,"  as  he  calls  it,  and 
adopts  the  "480th  year,"  which  he  calls  "Jewish  tradition;  "  saying, 
"the  Jewish  doctors  affirm  the  480  to  be  made  out  by  not  reckoning 
the  foreign  rulers  separate." 

This  last  statement  of  Eusebius  reveals  the  secret  as  to  how  the 
interval  got  reduced.  It  was  a  leaving  out  of  the  periods  of  invasion; 
at  first,  no  doubt,  as  a  mere  slighting  of  those  years  in  the  record, 
without  denying  their  reality  as  lengthening  the  time;  but  afterward, 
an  ignoring  of  them  entirely,  as  is  done  by  many  now. 

§  81.  Eusebius  gives,  as  the  principal  reason  for  rejecting  the 
longer  reckoning,  the  fact  that,  of  the  "  14  generations  "  in  Mat.  i:  17, 
"  only  five  names  are  given  after  the  Exodus  (he  should  say  six),  viz., 
Naason  (Num.  i:  7),  Salmon,  Boaz,  Obed,  Jesse,  David;  making  each 
generation  too  long  (600-^5=120)  as  he  says.  He  should  say,  580-5-6 
=96.  Thus  is  he  led  astray  by  not  perceiving  (what  we  have  shown 
in  "  Chron.  of  the  Judges,"  here  §  10)  that  the  "  14  generations"  de- 
note merely  " /^  se7)eniies''-=gd>o;  and  that  the  names  are  not  to  be 
taken  as  an  exact  list  of  all  the  links  of  descent,  but  are  only  meant  to 
give  life  to  the  several  steps,  f 

It  is  thus  probable  that  some  time  in  the  3d  century,  between 
Eusebius  and  Clement,  or  even  earlier,  the  "480th  year"  reading 
crept  into  the  Hebi-ew  text.  And  it  looks  as  though  it  came  from  the 
Jews,  who  in  those  days  were  the  chief  handlers  of  the  Hebrew  Script- 
ures. "On  account  of  the  prevalent  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Chaldee  languages  among  the  early  Christians,  the  Alexandrian  Greek 
version  (or  Lxx)  was  the  authority  employed."  [Chambers  Cyc.  Art. 
Bible.)  While  the  church  thus  trusted  to  their  Greek  copies,  the  Jews 
clung  to  their  Hebrew  text,  and  had  it  pretty  much  in  their  control. 
They  were  very  faithful  custodians  of  Scripture  until  they  were  cast 
off  for  their  rejection  of  Christ;  but  after  that  their  malignant- opposi- 
tion to  Christianity  tempted  them  to  any  measure  which  would 
oppose  it. 

§  82.  About  A.  D.  130,  their  leader.  Rabbi  Akiba,  originated  their 
modern  Jewish  Chronology,  to  which  they   still  adhere;  and  in  this 

*J.  Schwartz,  in  the  Bib.  Sacra  (July,  1888,  p.  447),  has  tried  to 
make  out  a  knowledge  of  the  480th  year  reckoning  in  Castor  of  Rhodes, 
just  before  Clement;  but  the  figuring  is  very  complicated  and  far- 
fetched, and  reaches  no  reliable  result. 

f  See  a  similar  case  explained  in  Period  C,  §  12. 


THE    JUDGES  258 

they  made  the  age  of  the  world  as  short  as  they  could,  in  order  to  deny 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  by  aUegmg,  that  "the  last  times  "  required 
by  prophesy  had  not  yet  arrived  when  he  appeared.  This  chronology 
{found  in  the  present  Jewish  calendar)  as  fully  established  in  the  3d 
century,  has  from  Creation  the  2451st  year  to  the  Exodus+480  to  the 
Temple+410  to  the  Captivity+490  to  Jerusalem's  overthrow  by  Titus 
=total  3831st  year  (minus  A.  D.  7o)=376ist  year  B.  C,  instead  of 
Usher's  4004.  This  seems  to  be,  then,  the  origin  of  the  "480th  year" 
assigned  at  the  founding  of  the  temple,* — along  with  the  greater  error 
of  only  (490— A.  D.  70=)  419  years  put  from  the  beginning  of  the  cap- 
tivity to  the  Christian  Era!  Such  is  the  blundering  Jewish  reckoning 
of  their  Hebrew  chronology. 

Aquila  was  a  pagan  who  became  a  Christian,  and  then  apostatized 
to  Judaism;  and  in  A.  D.  138  he  put  forth  his  Greek  translation  of  the 
Old  Testament,  to  take  the  place  of  the  Septuagint,  which  the  Jews 
had  by  that  time  pretty  generally  discarded  as  too  favorable  to  the 
Christians.  If  Aquila,  under  the  teaching  of  Rabbi  Akiba  (who  was 
his  preceptor)  adjusted  his  Greek  version  with  the  "440th  year  of  the 
exodus  from  Egypf'  at  I  Kings  vi:  i,  in  the  way  we  have  indicated 
above — it  would  soon  find  its  way  as  a  seeming  improvement  into  all 
copies  of  the  Greek  Lxx,  because  his  version  was  at  once  accepted  as 
more  correct  than  that.  And  it  would  not  be  long  before  the  Hebrew 
text  itself  would  show  its  gloss  (and  then  its  corruption)  "480th  year," 
as  we  have  shown.  "Origin  cites  the  text  I  Kings  vi:  i,  leaving  out 
all  that  part  (concerning  the  exodus);  nor  is  it  in  that  parallel  place  of 
Chronicles."'     (Jackson.) 

^83.  There  is  one  fact  very  noticeable  here:  "All  the  eastern 
copies  of  the  Hebi^ew  have  1656  years  before  the  flood;  but  all  the  western 
copies  have  1556,  leaving  100  from  Jared;  so  we  are  told  by  an  author 
of  good  credit."  (Jackson.)  It  would  thus  seem,  that  older  copies 
(scattered  in  the  west)  had  no  480  reducing  the  period  from  the  Exodus 
to  the  Temple  by  100  years,  but  had  instead  a  100  reduction  before  the 
flood.  Whereas,  when  eastern  copies,  by  insertion  of  the  480  would 
lower  the  whole  chronology  100  years,  an  offsetting  100  years  was 
added  to  Jared,  to  keep  the  total  A.  M.  unchanged,  viz.,  3761  B.  C, 
as  in  the  modern  Jewish  Chronology.  This  looks  like  a  purposed  ad- 
justment of  the  reckoning  about  the  2d  century.  (See  Period  A,  B,  ^ 
27.) 

But  we  need  not  here  allege  any  intentional  corruption  of  I  Kings 
vi:  i;  though  such  complaints  have  been  freely  made  by  many  writers. f 
We  have  shown  sufficient  grounds  for  explanatory  words,  inserted  in 

*Eusebius  says  he  took  it  from  "  the  Jewish  doctors." 
f  See  Appendix  D,  §  99. 


254  PERIOD    D 

the  margin,  and  finding  their  way  into  the  text,  as  a  supposed  correc- 
tion or  improvement.  And  this  is  all  that  we  feel  called  to  insist  upon. 
But,  one  way  or  another,  the  "480th  year"  reckoning  must  have  crept 
into  the  Scripture  account  at  some  period,  seemingly  later  than  when 
Paul,  and  Josephus,  and  the  other  early  writers  lived.  (See  Appendix 
E,  I  100.) 

Conclusion. 

§84.  So  then,  we  seem  to  have  shown,  that  the  present  "480th 
year  "  in  our  I  Kings  vi:  i,  is  a  corruption,  from  an  original  reckoning 
580  years,  probably  written  as  "980  years  "  from  Isaac,  and  changed 
to  480th  year  by  mistake,  as  a  supposed  correction  of  the  number. 
There  appears  but  one  question  unanswered,  viz:  Was  the  number 
"980"  in  the  original  Hebrew  as  Josephus  and  Paul  had  it— or  was 
the  text  without  a  date  at  that  point,  until  the  "  480th  year  "  was  subse- 
quently put  in  ?  The  deranged  order  of  the  Lxx  text  favors  the  latter 
view;  but  the  change  to  "480th  "  favors  the  former  view. 

If  the  Hebrew  text  originally  had  "980,"  the  form  of  statement 
then  must  have  been  different  from  what  it  now  is;  not  "480th  year  of 
exit  from  Egypt,"  but  "980  years  from  foreign  affliction,"  or  the  like. 
And  so  also,  when  the  "440th  year  "  was  a  mere  gloss  to  the  Lxx,  it 
must  have  read  "440th  year  of  exit  from  foreign  affliction,"  not  as  now 
"440th  year  of  exit  from  Egypt."  But  most  likely,  there  was  origi- 
nally no  man ber given  in  the  text  of  I  Kings  vi:  i.  If  it  were  there  in 
Kings,  why  is  so  marked  a  date  omitted  in  the  later  chronicles  going 
over  the  same  events  ? 

We  have  thus  given  a  plausible  account  of  the  way  in  which  the 
corruption  of  our  present  I  Kings  vi:  i,  may  have  come  about;  while 
yet  the  New  Testament  writers,  with  Josephus  and  others,  had  for  a 
certainty  no  such  number  there  as  we  now  have.  The  real  value,  the 
580  years,  carries  us  from  the  founding  of  the  temple  "  in  the  4th  year 
of  Solomon,"  B.  C.  loii,  to  B.  C.  1591  as  the  true  date  of  the  exodus, 
not  B.  C.  1491  as  Usher  has  it. 


APPENDIX  A. 

For  §  62. 


Josephus  and  the  Priest  Record. 

§  85.  We  have  shown  before  (in  the  previous  Period  E)  that 
Josephus  reckoned  the  70  years  captivity  as  ending  at  the  Jubilee  B.  C. 
513,  regarded  by  tradition  as  the  time  of  the  second  temple's  dedica- 
tion (delayed  like  Solomon's  dedication  to  concur  with  the  Jubilee). 
And  we  now  see  that  in  this  Josephus  was  only  following  the  Priest 


THE   JUDGES  255 

Record  given  by  him  (which  perpetuates  that  tradition),  though  he 
niistakingly  thought  that  record  lacked  12  years  of  reaching  down  to  B. 
C,  513,  and  therefore  added  12  years  to  it  to  make  his  own  chronology, 
as  we  shall  presently  see.     (§  86.) 

The  true  Bible  chronology,  as  we  showed  in  Period  E,  has  a 
marked  interval,  466  years,  as  the  duration  of  reign  to  David's  line,  from 
the  accession  of  David  in  B.  C.  1053  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in 
B,  C.  587.  This  same  interval  was  applied  by  the  Jews  to  reach  from 
Solomon's  dedication  50  years  later  in  B.  C.  1003,  down  to  the  Cyrus 
decree  for  restoration  as  also  50  years  later  in  B.  C.  537.  And  this 
same  interval  was  applied  in  the  Jews'  Priest  Record  as  reaching  from 
the  death  of  Zakok  (taken  as  24  years  after  Solomon's  dedication 
(as  also  24  years  after  the  Cyrus  decree),  viz.,  in  B.  C.  513.  These 
were  all  correct  applications  of  the  "466  years  "  interval.  (See  Restor. 
of  Jos.,  §  42,  43.) 

§  86.  But  in  after  times  Josephus  mistook  the  Priest  Record's  612, 
as  reaching  down  only  20  years  after  the  4th  of  Solomon  (the  definite 
period  of  building,  I  Ki.  ix:  10),  instead  of  24  years  after  the  12th  of 
Solomon,  the  time  of  dedication.  This  made  a  difference  of  8+4=)  12 
years,  causing  the  Priest  Record's,  466  years  to  fall  12  years  short  of 
its  true  terminus  in  B.  C.  513.  He  therefore  had  to  add  these  12  years 
as  5+7)  to  reach  first  the  2d  and  then  the  gth  of  Darius),  and  in 
this  way  he,  in  his  own  reckoning,  reached  12  years  earlier  than 
the  Record,  viz.  (1591+12=)  1603  B.  C.  for  the  exodus,  with  (580+12=) 
592  from  thence  to  the  temple. 

(Note.  Since  the  continuator  of  the  Priest  Record,  who,  before 
Josephus  had  appended  the  "414  years"  down  to  the  Maccabees, 
began  it,  by  a  similar  mistake,  at  the  2d  instead  of  the  9th  Darius,  there 
is  thus  now  in  the  Priest  Record  an  apparent  excess  of  only  7  years  in- 
stead of  the  12  put  in  by  Josephus.) 

§  87.  As  Josephus  thus  increased  by  12  both  the  Priest  Record 
total  1078  (up  to  1090)  and  its  earlier  portion  580  (up  to  592),  his  remain- 
ing portion  (1090 — 592=)  498  was  thus  left  the  same  as  that  in  the  Priest 
Record,  viz.,  1078—580^)  498  years  from  the  4th  Solomon  to  the 
9th  Darius,  or  (498 — 8=)  490  years  from  dedication  to  dedication  (B.  C. 
1003  to  513).  This  makes  491  years  from  the  founding  of  one  temple 
to  that  of  the  other  (put  as  B.  C.  ion  to  520) — just  as  Josephus  gives  it 
in  the  War,  in  precise  accord  with  the  Priest  Record,  as  here  seen. 
(See  further  in  Period  E.) 

Thus  the  Bible  chronology  seems  to  have  been  developed  historically, 
first  into  the  correct  reckoning  of  the  Priest  Record,  and  then  into 
the  modified  reckoning  of  Josephus  (correct  from  temple  to  temple),  as 
seen  in  the  table  at  JJ  5. 


256  ■  PERIOD    D 


APPENDIX  B. 

For  j5  71. 
The  Independence  Era  of  Ehud. 

^  88.  We  find  in  the  Greek  Septuagint  three  striking  and  related 
peculiarities,  which  combine  to  show  the  theory  upon  which  its  chro- 
nology at  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  is  based. 

(i)  The  passage  at  Ex.  xx:  40,  has  in  the  Lxx  an  inserted  clause,  as 
follows:  "Now  the  sojourning  of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  they 
sojourned  in  the  land  of  Egypt  and  in  the  land  of  Canaan  was  430 
years."  (The  Samaritan  pentateuch  has  a  similar  clause,  but  inserted 
befo7'e  instead  of  after  the  mention  of  Egypt.) 

§  89.  (2)  The  Lxx  has  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  reading  "in  the  440th  year,"  in- 
stead of  the  480th  year  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Moreover  the  whole  pas- 
sage (from  v:  16,  to  vi:  2)  is  transposed  and  confused,  showing  that  it 
has  been  tampered  with.     It  reads  thus: 

I  Ki.  v:  16,  " — the  people  that  wrought  in  the  work.  17.  And 
they  prepared  the  stones  and  the  timbers  [three  years.  And  it  came 
to  pass,  in  the  four  hundred  and  fortieth  year  of  exodus  of  (the)  chil- 
dren of  Israel  from  Egypt,  in  the  year  the  fourth,  in  month  the  second 
of  the  King  Solomon  reigning  over  Isi'ael,] 

17.  And  [that]  the  king  commanded  that  they  should  take  great 
costly  stones  for  the  foundation  of  the  house,  and  hewn  stones. 

18.  And  the  men  of  Solomon  and  the  men  of  Huram  hewed  and 
placed  them. 

vi:  I.  In  the  year  the  fourth  he  founded  the  house  of  the  Lord,  in 
month  of  Zif,  even  in  the  second  month. 

(38.)  In  the  eleventh  year,  in  month  Baal  (that  is  the  eighth 
month)  the  house  was  completed,  etc.      [No  "seven  years."] ' 

2.     And  the  house  which  the  king  built  for  the  Lord,"  etc. 

Remarks. 

The  original  lxx  evidently  was  without  the  sentence  in  brackets 
[];  without  which,  that  version  reads  much  like  the  Hebrew — ex- 
cept that  ver.  38  is  brought  back  to  fill  out  ver,  i  with  the  finished 
temple  dating  (instead  of  the  exodus  date). 

After  the  inserted  "three  years,"  on  the  margin  was  the  gloss  con- 
tained in  brackets  [],  which  afterward  wrongly  got  into  the  text. 
This  is  evident  from  the  awkward  manner  of  its  insertion,  in  the 
wrong  place  (at  v:  17,  instead  of  vi:  i — introduced  by  "And  "  without 
any  following  verb— and  repeating  the  year  and  month  of  ver.  i). 

Subsequently,  by  way  of  supposed  correction  of  the  lxx,  the  gloss 


THE    JUDGES  257 

was  inserted  in  the  Hebrew  also,  at  the  more  iitting  place  (ver.  i)  as 
"480th"  not  440th — thus  avoiding  the  repetition  of  the  year  and 
month. 

g  go.  (3)  The  Lxx  has  the  book  of  Joshua  not  ending  as  does  our 
Bible  with  the  Hebrew  verse  33  of  the  last  chapter,  but  has  an  addi- 
tional paragraph,  as  follows: 

"  In  that  day  the  children  of  Israel  took  the  ark  of  God  and  carried 
it  about  among  them;  and  Phinehas  exercised  the  priest's  office  in  the 
room  of  Eleazar,  his  father,  till  he  died;  and  he  was  buried  in  his  own 
place  Gebaar  [the  hill].  But  the  children  of  Israel  departed  every 
one  to  their  place  and  to  their  own  city.  And  the  children  of  Israel 
worshiped  Astarte  and  Ashtaroth,  and  the  gods  of  the  nations  round 
about  them;  and  the  Lord  delivered  them  into  the  hands  of  Eglon, 
King  of  Moab,  and  he  lorded  it  over  them  eighteen  years." 

This  is  an  abridgement  of  the  history  given  in  Judges  (i:  i,  to  iii:  30), 
taking  its  statements  particularly  from  ii:  6,  12,  13,  and  iii:  12,  14;  but 
the  first  statement  about  Phinehas  and  the  ark  has  no  parallel.  The 
early  Jews,  in  framing  the  Lxx  version,  evidently  followed  in  this  mat- 
ter a  tradition,  which  linked  the  book  of  Joshua  with  the  five  books  of 
Moses  as  a  "hexateuch,"  carrying  the  history  to  the  end  of  Jewish 
serrniude.  And  they  understood  that  the  nation  did  not  really  gain 
its  independence  till  Ehud's  80  years  of  peace,  after  the  18  years  of 
servitude  to  Eglon,  King  of  Moab;  with  which  latter  events,  therefore, 
the  book  of  Joshua  (or  of  subjugation)  was  considered  as  properly 
closing, 

§  gi,  Caleb's  nephew  Othniel,  really  the  first  "judge,"  seems  to 
have  been  looked  at  as  simply  a  survival  of  "  the  days  of  Joshua  and 
of  the  elders  that  outlived  Joshua"  (ii:  7);  and  so  long  as  the  ark  was 
"  carried  about  among  them,"  without  a  settled  headquarters  for  the 
people,*  their  actual  exodus  out  of  Egyptian  bondage  was  not  looked 
back  upon  as  complete.  They  thus  came  to  regard  the  accession  of 
Ehud, — when  he  "  blew  a  trumpet  "  and  cried  "Follow  after  me!" 
completely  routing  Moab, — as  a  grand  epoch  in  their  history;  from 
which  they  dated  forward  and  backward,  as  the  dividing  line  of  coloni- 
zation (or  pilgrimage)  and  of  nationality.  And  it  is  this  era  oi  fiftished 
independence  that  seems  to  have  been  originally  meant  by  "  the  440th 
year  "  at  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  of  the  Septuagint. 

^  g2.  Can  any  one  in  any  better  way  than  this  account  for  the  fact, 
that  the  Lxx  has  this  different  miniber  o{  years,  put  with  the  singular 

*  It  would  seem,  from  the  above  extract  from  the  Lxx,  that  after 
the  "  tabernacle"  was  located  at  Shiloh  (Josh,  xviii:  i,  10)  the  "ark  " 
itself  was  from  time  to  time  "  carried  about  "  for  safety  or  for  prestige, 
in  those  troublous  times,  until  it  was  fixed  in  its  place  at  Shiloh 
upon  Ehud's  triumph.     (Jud.  iii:  30,  and  xviii:  31.     See  I  Sam.  iv:  4.) 


258  PERIOD    D 

fact,  that  it  has  also  this  parallel  addition  at  the  close  of  Joshua, 
which  just  meets  the  requirements  of  the  changed  number  (440), — to- 
gether with  the  other  fact,  that  at  Ex.  xii:  40,  a  sojourn  "in  Canaan" 
is  added  as  following  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  ?  The  seve7ity  translators 
who  so  pubhcly  by  official  authority  sent  forth  the  Septuagint  from 
Alexandria,  certainly  would  not  boldly  cliangc  the  number  contained 
in  the  well-known  Hebrew  Scripture,  except  as  they  supposed  them- 
selves to  be  giving  an  equivalent  date  more  understandable  or  accepta- 
ble in  their  times. 

It  was  natural  for  the  Jews,  and  especially  there  in  Alexandria,  sur- 
rounded by  an  Egyptian  atmosphere,  to  lump  all  their  original  servi- 
tude in  with  the  Egyptian  bondage,  and  not  concede  that  they  had 
been  actual  slaves  to  other  nations  after  their  boasted  exodus  was 
complete.  And  they  did  not  like  to  magnify  the  time  after  their  full 
freedom  before  their  most  illustrious  monarch  had  built  their  world- 
famed  temple;  when  everybody  knew  that  the  fi^st  business  of  Egyp- 
tian monarchs  was  to  erect  their  stately  temples  of  worship.  They 
therefore  preferred  to  date  Solomon's  Temple  back  only  from  the  era 
of  their  full  independence,  with  distinct  recognition  that  it  was  before 
that  era  in  the  times  of  Moses  and  Joshua  and  their  immediate  colonial 
successors,  that  "the  ark"  of  their  worship  was  allowed  to  wander 
about  without  a  home. 

§  93.  And  that  there  was  some  excuse  for  this  traditional  era  of 
Ehud  as  the  end  of  national  servitude,  will  appear  from  the  fact,  that 
up  to  that  point  the  Scripture  expression  used  is,  "The  children  of 
Israel  served  Chushan-rishathaim,"  "  The  childi'en  of  Israel  served 
Eglon"  (Ju.  iii:  8,  14);  /.  e.,  they  were  in  actual  servitude  or  subjection, 
whereas  no  such  expression  occurs  afterward.  It  is  only  said  that 
the  enemy  "oppressed"  (iv:  3)  "  prevailed  against "  and  "impover- 
ished "  (vi:  2,  6),  "  vexed  "  and  "  distressed  "  (x:  8,  9),  and  "came  into 
the  coasts  of  Israel  (I  Sam.  ix:  13),  in  order  to  prove  Israel"  (Ju.  iii: 
1-5).  It  was  only  in  banter  that  the  Philistines  considered  themselves 
"  rulers  "  and  the  Hebrews  their  "servants"  (I  Sam.  iv:  9;  Ju.  xv:  11); 
they  were  simply  annoying  invaders,  not  subjugators  like  Chusham 
and  Eglon,  in  the  former  days  of  real  servitude.  At  least,  so  the 
Jews  liked  to  look  back  upon  it  in  after  times,  putting  an  era  of  com- 
parative independence  from  Ehud  onward. 

Moab  (likc'Edom),  though  unmolested,  yet  refused  a  passage  to  the 
Israelites  when  they  entered  the  land.  (Num.  xxii.)  Moab,  under  Ba- 
lak,  opposed  their  progress,  and  caused  a  great  plague  to  Israel. 
Hence  Balaam's  famous  Messianic  prophecy  (Num.  xxiv:  17),  "I  shall 
see  him,  but  not  now:  I  shall  behold  him,  but  not  nigh:  there  shall 
come  a  star  out  of  Jacob,  and  a  scepter  shall  rise  out  of  Israel  and 
shall  SMITE  the  corners  of  Moab,  and  destroy  all  the  children  of 
Sheth." 


THE   JUDGES  259 

It  was  just  loo  years  afterward,  when  Eglon  (king  of  Moab  in 
Balak's  place)  had  subjugated  Israel  for  i8  years  (their  last  real  bond- 
age); and  Ehud,  as  a  typical  "star  out  of  Jacob  and  scepter  out  of 
Israel,"  came  and  smote  most  terribly  Eglon  and  Moab,  with  slaughter 
of  10,000  (Jud.  iii:  12-30).  "And  there  escaped  not  a  man.  So  Moab 
was  subdued  that  day  under  the  hand  of  Israel;  and  the  land  had  rest 
four  score  years." 

§  94.  No  wonder  that  the  Jews  seem  to  have  regarded  this  acces- 
sion of  Ehud  as  a  great  era  in  their  history,  the  end  of  their  bondage, 
and  their  full  attainment  of  Canaan.  No  wonder  that  they  looked 
upon  Ehud  as  the  Star  and  the  Scepter  smiting  Moab,  the  type  of  their 
very  Messiah.  Those  100  years  (plus  the  40  in  the  wilderness)  they 
were  disposed  to  class  with  their  earlier  bondage,  rather  than  with 
their  later  freedom;  and  this  was  what  seems  to  have  led  to  the  cor- 
ruption of  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  from  its  original  intent  (580)  to  be  as  we  now 
have  it,  "  the  440th  year"  of  the  Septuagint. 

Josephus(Antiq.  5,  v:  i)  calls  the  80  years  of  Ehud  "  a  short  breath- 
ing-time after  the  slavery  under  the  Moabites";  and  his  editor,  Dr. 
Whiston,  takes  advantage  from  this  remark  to  suggest,  that  Josephus 
may  have  intended  only  8  years  instead  of  80  for  Ehud,  thus  seeking 
to  reach  the  shortened  "480th  year"  of  I  Ki.  vi:  i.  But  such  a  sur- 
mise is  entirely  foreign  to  all  Josephus'  reckoning.  He  only  means, 
that 80  years  of  freedom  seemed  but  "short"  compared  with  Israel's 
preceding  400  years  of  trouble.  In  reality,  the  80  years  of  Ehud  were 
lengthened  into  (80+20-1-40=)  140  years  of  comparative  quiet.  For 
the  intervening  "20  years"  of  Jabin's  oppression  (not  of  servitude) 
were  relieved  seemingly  by  the  simultaneous  administration  of  Sham- 
gar  and  Deborah  before  the  victory  of  Barak.  (See  Ju.  iii:  31,  and  iv: 
4,  "at  that  time.")  Some  expositors  have  omitted  those  20  years  from 
their  list  of  omitted  foreign  servitudes.     (See  Scott's  Bible.) 

§  95.  There  was  also,  in  the  Jewish  double  method  of  reckoning 
epochs,  a  special  reason  for  this  epoch  of  Ehud.  As  the  Lxx  puts  the 
period  "430  years"  distinctly  as  that  of  the  sojourning  "in  the  land 
of  Egypt  and  1)1  tJie  land  of  Canaan""  (not  Egypt  alone  as  in  our  He- 
brew); and  as  the  Samaritan  copy  has  the  same  in  diffei'ent  order,  viz, 
"in  Canaan  and  in  Egypt";  it  is  obvious  that  the  Jews  understood 
this  period  as  covering  the  whole  time  of  pilgrimage,  however  reckoned 
— whether  from  Abraham's  first  coming  to  Canaan  and  Egypt  down  to 
the  first  exodus  (where  the  number  is  put),  or,  as  applied  particularly 
to  Israel,  from  the  time  of  Israel's  going  off  to  sojourn  in  Haran  to 
the  time  of  Israel's  perfected  exit  out  of  servitude  (with  a  wandering 
ark)  at  the  triumph  of  Ehud.  For  this  latter  interval  they  made  "430 
years  "  as  truly  as  the  other.     (This  we  show  in  our  next  Appendix.) 

(Note.  The  translators  of  the  Lxx  were  led  to  the  insertion  of  their 
extra  clause  ("  and  in  the  land  of  Canaan")  in  the  text  of  Ex.  xii:  40,  as 


260  PERIOD    D 

a  necessity  of  their  wrong  rendering — *'the  sojourning — which  they 
sojourned."  For  they  saw  that  it  was  not  true,  that  the  430  years'  so- 
journing was  all  in  Egypt.  That  notion,  which  some  now  adopt,  did 
not  enter  their  minds.  The  revisers,  unfortunately,  adopt  their  ren- 
dering without  their  added  clause  to  preserve  the  truth.  But,  doubt- 
less, our  received  English  version  has  it  right.  "  Now  the  sojourning 
of  the  children  of  Israel  who  sojourned  in  Egypt,  was  430  years." 
This  is  strictly  true,  and  does  not  assert  that  the  430  years  was  all 
spent  in  Egypt.) 

APPENDIX  C. 

For  §  71. 
Israel's  Stay  in  Haran. 

§  96.  The  "430-year  "  interval  was  reckoned  from  "  Israel  "  him- 
self, as  well  as  from  Abraham.  That  is,  as  Ehud  began  at  the  (40-I-25. 
-|-xo+8-j-40-|-i8=)i4ist  year  after  the  Exodus,  for  a  second  ending  of 
the  430-year  period — so  Israel's  removal  to  Haran  was  regarded  as 
(Ab.  25+Isaac  6o-|-Israel  56  =)  the  141st  year  after  Abraham's  arrival 
in  Canaan,  for  a  second  beginning  of  the  430-year  period.  This  shows 
an  early  Jewish  opinion,  that  Israel  went  to  Haran  when  56  years  old 
(not  77  as  usually  reckoned) ;  *  and  that  his  stay  there  was  40  years  (in- 
stead of  20).  Perhaps  they  understood  Gen.  xxxi:  41  as  meaning,  "I 
have  been  twenty  years  in  thy  house;  also  I  served  thee  14  years  and  6 
years;  "  instead  of  viewing  the  two  clauses  as  covering  one  and  the  same 
20  years,  as  is  commonly  done. 

In  Gen.  xxxi:  38,  41,  the  Hebrew  has  no  verb  "have  been,"  and  no 
word  "  thus;  "  but  the  {zeh-zeh)  at  beginning  of  the  two  sentences  may 
be  adversative,  "this — that,"  or  "  one — another;  "  just  as  at  I  Ki.  xxii: 
20.  Thus  these  old  Jews  seem  to  have  read  the  passage,  verse  38, 
"  This  twenty  years  I  (have  been)  with  thee  "  working  on  shares^  with 
no  damage  to  thy  flocks;  verse  41,  "  That  (first)  twenty  years  (was)  in 
thy  house,"  serving,  first  for  wives  and  then  for  flocks,  (as  at  xxx:  32, 
"  and  they  shall  be  my  hire  "  for  the  six  years  over- work  already  per- 
formed; and  so  henceforth). 

§  97.  It  thus  appears,  that  the  compiler  of  Genesis,  after  entering 
upon  the  family  register  at  xxix:  31,  went  on  to  finish  it,  without  mixing 
in  business  arrangments  (a  common  method  of  writing  history);  and 
then,  at  xxx:  25,  went  on  to  give  the  revision  of  business  arrangments 
then  made,  after  some  34  years  spent  with  Laban.  This  leads  him 
now,  at  xxx:  29,  to^^  back  2SiA  relate  the  previous  origin  of  these  busi- 
ness arrangements,  when  "20  years  in  Laban's  house"  had  elapsed, 
xxxi:  41,  "  for  he  (Jacob)  had  ^^\A.  unto  him,"  etc.  (ver.  29.) 

*They  called  Joseph  40  (not  39)  when  Jacob  was  130,  making  Jacob 
96  (not  97)  on  leaving  Haran. 


THE   JUDGES  261 

Thus  Laban's  offer  at  xxx:  28,  is  2.  repetition  of  his  previous  pro- 
posal in  ver.  31,  made  some  fourteen  years  before;  and  the  repetition 
of  statement  here  (in  ver.  29  and  31)  plainly  shows  a  lapse  of  time  be- 
tween two  bargains.  At  the  second  bargaining  in  ver.  28,  after  com- 
plaint of  "wages  changed  lotimes  "  (xxxi:  7,  41),  Labanhasto  promise 
clearly  io  stick  to  his  bargain,  and  say,  "  appoint  me  thy  wages,  and  I 
WILL  GIVE  IT,"  /.  e.,  without  further  variation.  And  thereupon  (after 
the  episode  of  ver.  29-36,  belonging  back  after  xxix:  30),  the  account 
goes  on,  at  ver.  37-43;  to  relate  what  occurred  for  the  remaining  six 
years,  which  make  up  the  40  years  of  Jacob's  abode  in  Haran.  The 
first  20  years  were  in  "  Laban's  house  "  (xxxi:  41),  buying  wives  and  cat- 
tle (down  to  xxx:  32,  "they  shall  be  my  hire,"  i.  e.,  for  the  past  six 
years  overworked) ; — and  the  last  twenty  years  were  w?  shares  "with 
Laban  "  (xxxi:  38),  with  no  ground  of  complaint. 

The  Westminster  S.  S.  Quarterly,  for  April,  1894,  says,  Jacob's 
return  from  Haran  was  "20  years,  or,  according  to  other  authorities,  40 
years,  after  the  vision  at  Bethel."  In  the  S.  S.  Times,  Feb.  24,  1894, 
Prof.  Beecher,  of  Auburn,  says:  "An  obscure  tradition  affirms  that 
there  was  an  interval  of  20  years  between  the  14  years  and  the  6  years, 
regarding  the  20  years  of  verse  38  as  different  from  the  20  of  verse  42. 
That  there  was  such  a  long  interval  the  facts  conclusively  show." 
(He  recites  them.) 

The  learned  Dr.  Kennicott  accepts  as  correct  this  old  traditional 
view  of  the  Jews,  putting  Jacob's  sojourn  40  years.  (See  marg.  of 
Polyglott  Bible,  Gen.  xxvii:  i.)  And  there  is  certainly  some  ground  for 
this  view,  that  there  was  a  20  years  of  serving  and  an  additional  20 
years  of  sojourning.  Jacob  was  certainly  96  or  97  years  old  at  his  re- 
turn to  Canaan,  (Joseph  being  about  6,  see  Gen.  xxx:  25,  and  xxxi:  41); 
and  there  were  90  orgi  years  difference  in  the  age  of  Joseph  and  Jacob 
(see  xli:  46,  47,  and  xlv:  6,  and  xlvii:  9);  and  so  Jacob  was  56  or  57  not 
77  at  his  leaving  home.     For, 

§98.  (i)  That  is  the  more  likely  age  for  Jacob  to  go  seeking  a 
wife,  (xxviii:  i,  2,  comp.  xxvii:  41).  Esau  was  married  at  40  (see 
xxvi:  34). 

(2)  The  longer  sojourn  seems  necessary  to  account  for  all  the 
births  and  acquisitions  in  Haran.     (Ch.  xxix  to  xxxi.) 

(3)  Also,  to  account  for  the  advanced  boyhood  of  Reuben  before 
the  birth  of  several  of  his  brothers,     (xxx:  14.) 

(4)  To  account  for  the  difference  of  age  seemingly  required  between 
Joseph  and  his  brethren.     (Ch.  xxvii,  etc.) 

(5)  To  account  for  the  mature  age  of  the  daughter  Dinah,  as  given 
before  the  birth  of  Benjamin  on  the  way  to  Isaac.  (Ch.  xxxiv:ji5,  and 
xlviii:  7.) 

(6)  To  account  for  the  successive  births  and  marriages  of  Judah's 


262  PERIOD    D 

children,  and  the  birth  of  children's  children,  the  great  grandchildren 
of  Jacob,  all  within  33  years  after  leaving  Haran,  and  within  42  years 
after  Judah's  own  birth,  if  there  were  but  20  years'  stay  in  Haran. 
(Ch.  xxxviii  and  xlvi.) 

All  these  facts  of  the  Scripture  narrative  seem  to  require  the  births 
(of  xxix:  32,  to  xxx:  21)  to  be  not  shut  up'within  7  years;  as  a  20-years' 
stay  in  Haran  puts  them,  but  to  be  strung  along  through  27  years,  as  a 
40-years'  stay  makes  them. 

However,  those  afterward  who  took  Gen.  xxxi:  40  in  the  com- 
mon view  as  covering  but  20  years  of  sojourn,  had  the  i6ist  year 
(instead  of  141st)  from  Jacob's  75  yrs.  back  to  Abraham's  coming;  and 
they  tried  to  parallel  this  by  making  out  the  i6ist  year  (instead  of 
141st)  from  the  exodus  to  Ehud.  This  they  did  by  lengthening  Joshua 
2  years  (from  25  to  27)  and  lengthening  the  subsequent  anarchy  18 
years  (from  10  to  28),  as  we  find  the  numbers  given  by  Eusebius.  Thus 
having  the  i6istyear  down  to  Ehud,  the  adding  of  "  the  440th  year  "  of 
the  Ixx,  made  just  600  years  to  the  temple,  instead  of  the  correct  580th 
year.  Here,  then,  is  seen  one  source  of  the  enlarged  reckotiing  {<ooo, 
etc.)  of  this  interval,  which  so  prevailed  in  later  times,  and  which 
we  more  fully  discuss  elsewhere. 

APPENDIX  D. 

For  §  83. 

Corruption  of  the  Scripture  Text. 

§  gg.  From  the  CJironoI.  Atitiq.,  by  John  Jackson,  London,  17 J2, 
J  twl.  folio.  "  The  Hebrew  was  corrupted  by  the  later  Jews  them- 
selves, and  so  the  Christians  were  imposed  upon.  The  true  chronology 
was  divinely  preserved  in  Josephus,  who  says  he  followed  the  Hebrew 
copies.  The  corruption  is  no  older  than  the  2d  century.  Augustine 
{De.  Civ.  Dei.  xv:  i)  relates,  that  the  Jews  were  suspected  of  having 
corrupted  their  copies  (as  to  the  antediluvians)  out  of  envy  to  the  Christ- 
tians,  and  to  diminish  the  authority  of  the  Greek  Scriptures  used  by 
the  Christian  Church, — and  to  confound  the  time  of  Christ's  coming. 
This  was  easy  to  be  done  through  their  Sanhedrim,  who  controlled  all 
Jews.  *  *  *  In  the  2d  century  great  changes  were  made  in  the 
Hebrew.  For,  the  new  Greek  translations  of  Aquila  (A.  D.  128), 
Theodotian  (185),  and  Symmachus  (200)  vary  much  from  the  Septua- 
gint.     In  this  corrected  Hebrew  the  whole  chronology  was  shortened. 

"Few  Christians  understood  the  Hebrew,  so  that  it  was  easy  to 
corrupt  it;  and  most  Hebrew  copies  were  lost  at  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  and  the  destruction  in  the  reign  of  Hadrian.  Then  Aquila 
was  employed  to  get  up  a  new  translation  (in  A.  D,  128),  and  this  was 
the   only   reason  for  it.     Epiphanius  {De  Mensa,  p.    171)   says  that 


THE.j^^ps  263 

Aquila  perverted  the  Hebrew  text  to  invalidate  the  prophesies  concern- 
ing Christ,  etc.  It  was  promoted  by  the  false  Christ  that  the  Jews 
then  got  up.  Justin  Martyr  (A.  D.  142)  mentions  several  instances  of 
the  altering  and  erasing  of  prophesies  aconcerning  Christ  in  the  Ixx. 

*  *  *  Abul-Pharagius  is  very  express  in  charging  the  Jews  with 
this  mutilation  for  this  purpose. 

"  Eusebius  followed  a  groundless  Jewish  tradition,  including  the 
foreigners  in  the  reigns;  which  led  to  error  of  opinion  concerning  this 
period.  The  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  has  been  corrupted  by  the  Jew^s,  and  the  '  480  ' 
was  not  known  to  the  ancient  Jewish  and  Christian  writers,  Eusebius 
is  the  first  that  mentions  the  480.  *  *  *  Very  likely  the  480  was  in- 
serted in  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  to  support  the  '  Jew-ish  tradition'  mentioned  by 
Eusebius,  of  foreigners  included  in  the  reigns,  and  as  a  contrivance  to 
shorten  the  chronology,  getting  it  nearly  as  in  the  Lxx  before  Eusebius 
(viz. ,  440).  But  there  was  no  number  there  known  by  Paul  or  Josephus, 
either  in  Greek  or  Hebrew.  It  was  introduced  no  later  than  the  3d 
century.  For  Origen  cites  the  text  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  leaving  out  all  that 
part.  Nor  is  it  in  the  parallel  place  of  Chronicles.  And  Panadorus 
(A.  D.  400)  found  fault  with  Eusebius  for  this.  Also  Syncellus."  (See 
Periods  A,  B,  §  20.) 

See  also  Russel's  Connection  of  Sacred  and  Profane  Chronology 
(Wheeler's  edition)  Vol.  i,  p.  79-81,  which  is  cited  by  J.  Schwartz  in 
Bib.  Sac,  1888,  p.  447. 

APPENDIX  E. 

For  §  83. 
The  Reliability  of  Josephus. 

^  100.  The  learned  Wm.  Whiston  (A.  D.  1750),  in  highly  eulogizing 
Josephus,  says:  "  Let  me  set  down  the  sentiments  of,  perhaps,  the 
most  learned  person  and  the  most  competent  judge  that  ever  was,  as 
to  the  authority  of  Josephus, — I  mean  of  Joseph  Scaliger  (A.  D.  1600) 
in  his  Emend.  Temp.,  p.  17:  'Josephus  is  the  most  diligent,  and  the 
greatest  lover  of  truth  of  all  writers;  nor  are  we  afraid  to  affirm  of  him, 
that  it  is  more  safe  to  believe  him,  not  only  as  to  the  affairs  of  the 
Jews,  but  also  as  to  those  that  are  foreign  to  them,  than  all  the  Greek 
and  Latin  writers;  and  this  because  his  fidelity  and  his  compass  of 
learning  are  everywhere  conspicuous.'  " 

Eusebius  (A.  D.  320)  often  quotes  from  Josephus  as  reliable  author- 
ity, and  says  (Hist,  i:  11):  "Since  this  writer,  sprung  from  the 
Hebrews  themselves,  hath  delivered  these  things  in  his  own  work, 
what  room  is  there  for  any  further  evasion  ?  " 

Ambrose  (A.  D.  360)  says  of  Josephus:  "  He  is  an  author  not  to  be 
rejected."     "  If  the  Jews  do  not  believe  us,  let  them  at  least  believe 


264  PERIOD    D 

their  own  writers.  Josephus,  whom  they  esteem  a  very  great  man, 
hath  spoken  truth.  It  was  no  prejudice  to  the  truth  that  he  was  not  a 
(Christian)  behever,  but  this  adds  more  weight  to  his  testimony." 

Isidore  (A.  D.  410)  calls  Josephus  "a  Jew  of  the  greatest  reputa- 
tion, and  one  that  was  zealous  of  the  law;  one  also  that  paraphrased 
the  Old  Testament  with  truth,  and  acted  valiently  for  the  Jews.  He 
made  interest  give  place  to  truth,  for  he  would  not  support  the  opinion 
of  impious  men." 

Sozomon  (A.  D.  440)  says:  "  Now  Josephus,  the  son  of  Mattathias, 
a  priest,  a  man  of  very  great  note  both  among  the  Jews  and  the 
Romans,  may  well  be  a  witness  of  credit  as  to  the  truth  of  Christ's 
history." 

Cassiodorus  (A.  D.  510)  calls  Josephus  "a  man  of  great  nobility 
among  the  Jews,  and  of  great  dignity  among  the  Romans,"  a  reliable 
source  of  "truth." 

The  Chron.  Alex.  (A.  D.  640)  cites  Josephus  as  "  a  wise  man  among 
the  Hebrews."  And  Malela  (A.  D.  850)  calls  Josephus  "the  philos- 
opher of  the  Hebrews." 


PART  III. 
The  Pharaoh  of  The  Exodus. 

§  loi.  We  have  shown  the  date  of  the  exodus  according  to  Script- 
ure.* But  does  not  modern  research  into  Egyptian  antiquities  require 
a  different  dating?  No.  Egyptology  is  unable  to  determine  the  date 
of  the  exodus;  and  the  Bible  reckoning  must  stand  upon  its  own 
merits.     For,  look  at 

CHAPTER  I. 
Egyptian  Chronology. 

(i)  There  is  no  Egyptian  account  of  the  exodus.  This  is  conceded 
by  all.  Their  monuments  and  inscriptions  recorded  achievements,  not 
disasters.  It  is  only  incidental  circumstances  that  can  be  picked  out 
here  and  there,  to  indicate  where  the  exodus  inight  have  been;  and 
there  are  in  Egyptian  history  several  such  possible  epochs,  hundreds  of 
years  apart,  where  such  an  event  might  well  have  come  in.     It  is  not 

*  Usher  gives  it  as  (B.  C.  588+424=3.  C.  ioi2+48oth=B.  C.  1491. 
We  show  it  to  be  more  probably  (B.  C.  587+424=101  i+58o=)B.  C. 
1591- 


THE   JUDGES  265 

likely  that  exploration  will  ever  bring  any  determination  of  the  case. 
For, 

§  I02.  (2)  The  Egyptians  had  no  chronology,  as  the  Hebrews  so 
exactly  had.  Hear  what  George  Rawlinson,  the  learned  professor,  of 
Oxford,  says  upon  the  subject: 

"  The  great  defect  of  the  monuments  is  their  incompleteness.  The 
Egyptians  had  no  era.  They  drew  out  no  chronological  schemes. 
They  cared  for  nothing  but  to  know  how  long  each  incarnate  god, 
human  or  bovine,  had  condescended  to  tarry  upon  the  earth.  *  *  * 
They  omitted  to  distinguish  the  sole  reign  of  a  monarch  from  his  joint 
reign  with  others.  A  monarch  might  occupy  the  throne  ten  years  in 
conjunction  with  his  father,  thirty-two  years  alone,  and  three  years  in 
conjunction  with  his  son;  in  an  Egyptian  regnal  list  he  will  be  credited 
with  forty-five  years,  although  his  first  ten  years  will  be  assigned  also 
to  his  father,  and  his  last  three  to  his  son.  *  *  *  Only  one  calcu- 
lation of  the  time  which  had  elapsed  ^between  a  monarch  belonging  to 
one  dynasty  and  one  belonging  to  another,  has  been  found  in  the  whole 
range  of  Egyptian  monumental  litei-ature;  and  in  that,  which  is  the 
(apparently)  rough  estimate  of  400  years,  neither  the  terminus  a  quonox 
the  terminus  ad  quem  is  determined. 

"The  only  monumental  list  which  is  chronological  at  all,  the  Turin 
papyrus  (as  to  the  i8th  dynasty),  exists  in  tattered  fragments,  the  orig- 
inal order  of  which  is  uncertain,  while  the  notices  of  time  which  it 
once  contained  ai^e  in  many  cases  lost  or  obliterated.  *  *  *  These 
many  and  great  defects  of  the  Turin  papyrus  it  is  quite  impossible  to 
supply  from  any  other  monumental  source.  A  casual  correction  of  the 
numbers  given  in  the  papyrus  may  be  made  from  the  annals  of  the 
kings;  but  there  is  no  possibility  of  filling  up  its  gaps  from  the  monu- 
ments, nor  of  constructing  from  them  alone  anything  hke  a  consecutive 
chronological  scheme,  either  for  the  early,  or  the  middle  (Hyesos),  or 
even  the  later  empire.  This  is  confessed  by  most  Egyptologists, 
though  not  as  yet  very  clearly  apprehended  by  the  general  public. 

"  Brugsch  says:  '  It  is  only  from  the  beginning  of  the  26th  dynasty 
(B.  C.  692)  that  the  Egyptian  chronology  is  founded  on  data  which  leaves 
little  to  be  desired  as  to  their  exactitude. '  Bunsen  say s :  '  H istory  is  not 
to  be  elicited  from  the  monuments;  not  even  its  frame-work,  chronol- 
ogy. '  Stuart  Poole  say  s :  'The  condition  of  the  monuments  with  regard 
to  the  chronology  is  neither  full  nor  explicit.'  Lenormant  says:  '  The 
greatest  obstacle  to  the  establishment  of  a  regular  Egyptian  chronology 
is,  that  the  Egyptians  themselves  never  had  any  chronology. '  Even  for 
the  last  empire  a  monumental  chronology  is  absolutely  unattainable." 
{Rawlinson'' s  Hist,  of  Anc.  Egypt,  Vol.  II,  Ch.  i2,  p.  2.)  See  here, 
Period  E,  §  160,  etc. 

^  103.  (3)  Egyptology  can  not  even  assign  for  certainty  the  time  of 
any  Egyptian  king  before  Solomon,  or  tell  within  100  years  when  any 


2bb  PERIOD    D 

pharaoh  reigned.  The  only  means  of  putting  in  order  at  all  the  reigns 
of  those  ancient  pharaohs,  is  the  list  of  dynasties  given  by  Manetho 
(B.  C.  304);  and  his  figures  in  some  cases  are  proved  by  the  monuments 
unreliable;  while  it  is  not  even  agreed  in  what  cases  the  dynasties 
overlap  each  other,  or  when  the  reigns  are  successive.  Compare  such 
a  jumble  of  reckoning  with  the  careful  and  orderly  specification  of 
reigns  and  synchronisms  and  eras  given  in  Scripture,  and  judge 
whether  it  is  possible  for  any  theory  of  Egyptian  dating  ever  to  com- 
pete with  or  disparage  a  plain  Hebrew  date.  Egyptian  darkness  will 
not  eclipse  Bible  light. 

45  104.  (4)  The  excavated  monuments  of  Egypt  do  not  determine 
definitely  the  time  in  which  those  ancient  pharaohs  lived.  They 
merely  tell,  in  a  few  cases,  how  long  one  particular  king  reigned,  not 
at  what  period  of  time  his  reign  was  located.  There  are  four  inscrip- 
tions sometimes  cited,  in  which  the  rising  of  Sirius,  the  dog-star,  is 
mentioned  in  connection  with  the  dating  of  the  seasons;  and  attempts 
have  been  made  to  deduce  therefrom,  astronomically,  the  years 
wherein  those  mentions  are  made.  But  it  has  been  shown  that  no 
date  of  any  reign  can  thus  be  definitely  ascertained.  (See  this  fully 
discussed  in  my  essay  on  "  Monumental  Inscriptions  and  the  Egyptian 
years.)  Egyptologists  assign  their  chronology  of  the  ancient  Pharaohs 
in  entire  contradiction  and  defiance  of  such  calculations. 

§  105.  (5)  There  is  but  one  other  means  of  information,  by  which 
alone  a  probable  starting  point  has  been  reached  for  the  locating  of  the 
ancient  pharaohs.  It  is  the  remark  of  Theon  (A.  D.  365),  that  the 
Sothic  era,  running  1460  years,  was  called  "the  era  of  Menophres." 
This  tradition  is  positively  all  we  know  of  the  time  when  any  ancient 
pharaoh  lived.  And  Egyptologists  are  all  agreed  in  accepting  this  as 
the  one  reliable  dictum  upon  which  the  ancient  Egyptian  chronology 
must  be  based. 

As  A.  D.  136-9  is  known  to  be  the  ending  of  the  Sothis  period, 
when  Sirius  rose  heliacally  on  July  20,  Julian,  the  I  Thoth  of  the 
Egyptian  rotary  year,  its  beginning  must  be  at  (1460  yrs. — A.  D. 
136-9=)  B.  C.  1325-2.  And  this  is  the  date  which  Theon  says  the 
Egyptians  call  "the  era  of  Menophres,"  one  of  the  pharaohs.  Who 
was  he?  Egyptologists  almost  universallj'  are  agreed  that  it  is  "  Men- 
eptah,"  the  son  and  successor  of  "  Rameses  II  the  Great,"  and  fourth 
king  of  the  19th  dynasty  of  Manetho.  So  that,  as  the  Sothic  era  B.  C. 
1325-21  is  taken  as  coming  in  the  reign  of  Meneptah,  the  19th  dynasty 
is  assigned  as  beginning  about  B.  C.  1477,  by  putting  in  the  three  previ- 
ous reigns  as  given  by  Manetho,  whose  lengths  of  dynasties  also 
confirm  the  same. 

§  106.  For,  as  given  by  Geo.  Rawlinson  (Hist.  Anc.  Egypt,  1889^ 
p.  7),   "Tirhakah  [II  Ki.  xix:  9]  reigned  26  years,  and  we  may  there- 


THE   JUDGES  267 

fore  place  his  accession  in  B.  C.  698.  Thus  far  back  the  dates  are  as 
nearly  as  possible  certain,  and  from  here  we  are  thrown  almost  entirely 
upon  Manetho,  who  makes  the  rest  of  the  25th  dynasty  22  or  24  years, 
i.  e.,  to  B.  C.  722  for  the  accession  of  '  So  '  [agreeing  with  II  Ki.  xvii: 
4].  Then  the  24th  dynasty  is  44  years  (from  Euseb.  in  Syn.),  and  the 
23d  and  22d  dynasties  are  209  years  (from  Afric.  in  Syn.),  carrying  us 
to  B.  C.  975  for  the  accession  of  Shishak  [the  year  before  Solomon's 
death,  in  agreement  with  I  Ki.  xi:4o],  or  B.  C.  935  if,  at  dynasties  25 
and  24,  the  22  yrs.  and  6  yrs.  (from  Afric.  in  Syn.)  be  substituted  for 
the  24  yrs.  and  44  yrs.  (from  Euseb.  in  Syn.)  [Mariette  makes  it  B. 
C.  980.]  Then  the  21st,  20th,  and  19th  dynasties  are  (from  Afric.)  474 
years,  or  (from  Euseb.)  502  years;  making,  when  added  to  975,  the 
19th  dynasty  begin  B.  C.  1449  to  1477  (the  latter  being  the  Eusebian 
reckoning  throughout)."  So  says  Rawlinson  (abridged).  Prof.  Lep- 
sius  and  M.  Mariette  (in  Encyc.  Brittan.)  reduce  the  19th  dynasty  from 
194  to  174,  which  will  make  its  Eusebian  19th  dynasty  begin  B.  C.  1457. 
Wilkinson,  Birch,  and  Lenoi"mant  reduce  the  19th  dynasty  to  160 
years,  which  will  make  it  begin  B.  C.  1443.* 

§  108.  We  may,  therefore,  set  B.  C.  1477  to  1443  as  the  limits  for 
the  beginning  of  the  19th  dynasty,  as  assigned  by  Egyptologists  from 
the  Eusebian  reckoning  of  Manetho's  dynasties — in  close  agreement 
with  the  date  obtained  from  the  Sothis  period  as  beginning  in  the 
reign  of  Meneptah.  For,  that  B.  C.  1325-2,  with  only  Manetho's  two 
preceding  reigns  given  as  125  years,  will  make  B.  C.  1450,  before  putting 

*The  19TH  Dynasty. 

§  107.  The  Eusebian  reckoning  of  Manetho's  dynasties,  both  in  the 
Latin  of  Jerome  and  the  Greek  of  Syncellus,  puts  the — 

B.  C.    2ist.    20th.       B.  C.     19th.      B.  C.         Begin. 

Begin,  of  22d  dy =975+130+178=1283+194=1477=19  dy. 

Another  copy (202=1485) 

The  Armen.  of  Euseb 172=1277+194=1471         (1479) 

Lepsius  &  Mariette  reduce  to 174=1457 

Mariette  has  98o,&  thus  1288+174=1462 

But  with  Euseb 194=1482         (1476) 

Wilkinson,  Birch,  and  Lenormant   re- 
duce to 160=1443 

Afric.  in  Syn.  (in  Anthon)  has 135=1240+210=1450 

(in  Rawlinson) 209^1449 

(another  copy) 204=1444 

An.  Old  Chronicle  has +121+228=1324+194=1518 

Lepsius  has  the  961  (14  less  than  Euseb.)  1269+174^1443 

Others    reduce    to    935    (from    Afric, 

making +174=1417   (or  less.) 


PERIOD    D 


in  any  reign  of  Meneptah  himself  or  of  Ramses  I,  which  may  carry  us 
to  B.  C.  1477.  Here,  then,  at  B.  C.  1477  to  1450,  is  the  highest  proba- 
bihty  that  Egyptology  can  reach,  for  a  date  of  beginning  the  19th 
dynasty,  as  a  basis  of  the  doubtful  chronology  within  two  hundred 
years  each  way  from  that  time.* 


CHAPTER    II. 

Theories  of  the  Exodus. 

g  109.  With  the  19th  dynasty  thus  located  within  certain  limits, 
there  have  followed  three  sorts  of  assignment  for  the  exodus;  (i)  as  be- 
ing just  before,  (2)  as  being  over  a  century  before,  (3)  as  being  over  a 
century  after  the  igth  dynasty  began. 


I.     The  Midway  Assignment. 

§  no.  The  standard  reckoning  of  all  who  follow  the  Bible,  and  ac- 
cept "  the  480th  year"  date  (of  I  Ki.  vi:  i)  has  for  centuries  put  the 
exodus  just  before  the  19th  dynasty,  viz.,  in  B.  C.  1491  (as  given  by 
Usher),  as  the  "480th"  year  added  to  "the  4th  year  of  Solomon," 
This  throws  the  event  into  the  last  reign  of  the  18th  dynasty,  assumed 
to  be  the  reign  of  the  last  "  Amenophis  "  of  Manetho  (as  given  by  Jo- 
sephus,  I'^s.  Apion,  i:  15).  He  is  understood  as  the  one  who  expelled 
the  lepers  irom  Egypt,  according  to  Manetho's  account  there  given. 

This  Amenophis  reckoning  of  the  exodus  is  given  by  the  great 
Egyptologist  Champolion  (A.  D.  1830),  and  will  be  found  fully  ex- 
plained in  Anthon's  Classical  Dictionary  (A.  D.  1856),  Art.  Egypt  and 
Sesostris.  Champolion  puts  the  exodus  in  the  3d  year  of  that  Pharaoh 
(Amenophis),  leaving  17^^  of  his  19^^  years  reign  to  go  before  the  19th 
dynasty  taken  as  begun  in  B.  C.  1473,  thus  making  up  the  B.  C.  1491 
to  the  exodus,     Pharaoh  himself  was  not  regarded  as  drowned  in  the 

*  The  only  exception  to  this  as  the  universally  accepted  foundation 
of  dating  for  those  times,  is  the  recent  scheme  of  Jacob  Schwartz,  of 
New  York,  put  forth  in  the  Bib.  Sacra,  for  July,  1888,  and  in  the  Lon- 
don Theolog.  Monthly  for  March,  July  and  August,  1889.  He  throws 
out  the  2ist  dynasty  entirely  (as  overlapping  the  20th  and  22d)!  and  so 
brings  down  the  19th  dynasty  to  begin  at  the  Sothic  era  B.  C.  1325-2; 
with  Ramses  I  there  put  as  the  "  Menophres  "  of  Theon;  because  (he 
says)  Ramses  I  had  "a  throne  name"  iMcnpe/iora,  which  serves  for 
identification.  But  this  novel  scheme  so  violates  the  dynasties  upon  a 
bare  assumption  (to  make  out  a  theory),  and  is  so  contrary  to  all  views 
of  Egyptologists,  that  we  hardly  need  to  consider  it  here. 


THE   JUDGES  269 

Red  Sea;  but  Roselini,  thinking  he  was  drowned,  assigned  the 
exodus  to  the  very  close  of  his  reign,  putting  the  igth  dynasty  that 
much  earher. 

There  is  httle  in  the  surrounding  circumstances  or  incidents  of  that 
period  to  encourage  the  assignment  of  the  exodus  there.  The  story 
told  by  Manetho  of  Egyptian  lepers  expelled  by  Amenophis  has  little 
to  fasten  it  upon  the  Hebrews;  and  the  imputation  was  justly  repelled 
by  Josephus.  Besides,  this  whole  understanding  of  Manetho's 
"Amenophis,"  theexpeller  of  lepers,  as  being  the  king  ending  the  i8th 
dynast}',  has  been  long  ago  universally  discarded.  So  that  there  is 
nothing  left  to  sustain  this  dating  of  the  exodus,  save  the  bare  Script- 
ure number  "  480th  year,"  which  would  put  it  there.  This  itself  is  an 
argument  against  the  genuineness  of  that  number.  Therefore,  we 
turn  to 

2.     The  Earlier  Assignment. 

S  III.  When  the  Scripture  number  (in  II  Ki.  vi:  i)  is  taken  as  more 
properly  "  580  years,"  it  carries  back  the  exodus  100  years  further  to 
B.  C.  1591,  /.  ^.,  into  the  middle  of  the  18th  dynasty,  in  the  reign  of 
Thotmes  III  or  IV,  or  thereabouts.  And  the  circumstances  and  sur- 
roundings there  are  much  more  consonant  with  the  event  than  in  the 
other  place.  The  particulars  in  this  respect  we  will  give  at  a  later 
stage  of  the  inquiry.  This  fact  itself  is  evidence  that  the  longer 
reckoning  of  the  Judges  and  the  earlier  dating  of  the  exodus  must 
have  precedence,  as  the  more  probable  of  the  two  Scripture  views,  and 
more  accordant  with  the  teachings  of  Egyptology. 

Among  Egyptologists  Wilkinson  long  ago  assigned  the  exodus  to 
the  reign  of  Thotmes  III.  (See  Anthon.)  And  others  put  it  at  the  end 
of  Thotmes  IV,  giving  special  reasons  therefor.  Recently,  Jacob 
Schwartz,  of  New  York,  has  fully  and  with  much  force  argued  out  the 
certainty  (as  he  thinks)  that  Thotmes  III  was  the  Pharaoh  of  the 
Exodus.  {London  Theolog.  Monthly,  March  and  July,  i88g.)  There 
is  much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  Thotmes  III  and  IV,  or  their  epoch,  as 
the  times  of  Hebrew  oppression  and  release.  But  we  will  not 
expatiate  here.     For,  we  must  mention 


3.     The  Later  Assignment. 

J^  112.  Egyptologists,  almost  universally,  in  rejecting  (as  they  think 
they  must)  the  old  standard  or  midway  view  of  the  exodus  as  just  be- 
fore the  19th  dynasty,  have  fallen  upon  a  much  later  and  entirely  un- 
scriptural  date,  having  no  warrant  in  the  Bible,  but  utterly  opposed  to 
its  teachings.     They  have  assigned  it  to  about  the  Sothic  era  itself, 


■i!U  PERIOD    D 

B.  C.  1325-2,  saying,  dogmatically  and  often  sceptically,  that  the  exo- 
dus mi/s/have  taken  place  {(faf  all)  in  the  reign  of  Menepteh,  near  the 
last  of  the  19th  dynasty. 

This  theory  has  taken  root  only  within  this  last  generation,  but  is 
now  entirely  in  the  ascendant,  especially  among  German  and  sceptical 
explorers  of  monuments  and  inscinptions.  It  is  too  much  patronized 
and  deferred  to,  even  by  Christian  scholars,  as  if  it  might  assist  in  Bible 
investigations;  whereas,  like  the  most  objectionable  form  of  the 
"  higher  criticism,"  of  which  it  is  in  fact  a  part,  it  repudiates  not  only 
"the  480th  year"  of  the  Scripture  text,  but  all  its  other  datings, — re- 
ducing the  interval  from  the  exodus  to  the  founding  of  Solomon's  tem- 
ple ("if  there  were  any  exodus")  down  to  about  (1310 — 1010  =  300 
years!  or  at  most  350  years  by  shoving  down  Solomon  40  or  50  years. 
Modern  Egyptology  thus  sets  aside  the  whole  Bible  Chronology,  as  of 
no  account;  though  some  attempt  to  make  it  over  arbitrarily  to  suit  the 
alleged  requirements  of  monumental  research. 

The  i8th  Dynasty. 

§  113.  It  remains  for  us  to  find  to  what  point  in  the  i8th  dynasty 
the  earlier  or  "  580  years  "  reckoning  (deduced  from  I  Ki.  vi:  i)  will 
take  us  back.  This  is  no  easy  task,  because  not  only  is  the  length  of 
the  19th  dynasty  greatly  disputed  (as  we  saw),  but  the  whole 
reckoning  of  the  i8th  dynasty,  and  especially  the  last  part  of  it,  is  in 
the  greatest  confusion,  as  conceded  by  all.  Manetho  in  Josephus 
(Vs.  Ap.  I,  15,  16)  gives  the  i8th  dynasty  as  having  18  reigns  with  327 
years  (as  added,  or  393  as  stated  by  Josephus).  But  modern  Egyptolo- 
gists cut  off  the  last  6  or  7  reigns,  or  all  but  200  years. 

Says  the  Eiicyc.  B}'itta?t.:  "  Manetho's  list  is  here  in  a  very  cor- 
rupt state.  If  the  line  ends  with  the  accession  of  Ramses  1  [right 
after  Orus  as  the  nth  king],  we  can  make  a  sum  of  not  much  over  200 
years  for  the  line."  If  we  end  thus  with  Orus  and  his  alleged  daugh- 
ter, Manetho's  list  has  12  rulers,  with  208  yrs.  and  3  mo.  Mariette  has 
it  241  years  (from  B.  C.  1462  to  1703),  seeming  to  add  in  the  next  three 
reigns,  which  make  up  241  yrs.  and  11  months.* 

§  114.  But  all  that  can  be  said  with  safety  is  what  Schwartz  as- 
serts: "The  three  last  kings  are  simply  duplicates  or  repetitions  of 
dynasty   19,   as  nearly  all  Egyptologists  are  agreed."     Or,   he  should 

*  Schwartz  (in  the  Lon.  Theolog.  Monthly,  p.  154)  takes  out  the  last 
three  reigns,  81  years  (he  says  87),  and  the  next  five  reigns,  49  yrs.  10 
mo.  (he  says  49);  but  he  adds  in  an  extra  "  13  years  "  at  Horus;  so  that 
he  has  (89-I-49  10-12 — 13=)  117  yrs.  10  mo.  less  than  Manetho's  total 
327,  leaving  209  yrs.  2  mo.  for  his  i8th  dynasty, — very  nearly  as  given 
above. 


THE    JUDGES  271 

rather  say,  the  t/itre  kings  before  the  last  are  duplicates.*  The  very  last 
king  given  in  Manetho's  list,  as  if  ending  the  i8th  dynasty,  viz., 
"  Amenophis,  ig  yrs.  and  6  mo.,"  is  the  most  inexplicable  of  all,  and 
has  given  rise  to  great  diversity  of  opinion.  But  we  show  elsewhere  \ 
that  this  last  king  (wrongly  located  by  Josephus)  was  probably  me7i- 
tioned  incidentally  out  of  place  by  Manetho,  who  was  here  simply  re- 
ferring back  io  "Amenophis  IV,"  whom  he  had  not  named  before,  be- 
cause it  was  a  rejected  reign  (as  the  monuments  show)  and  contem- 
porary with  "  Orus  "  or  his  successors. 

There  is  a  circumstance  which  shows  that  we  ai^e  right  in  this  ex- 
planation. *'  Manetho  says  that  the  chief  adviser  of  his  Amenophis 
(the  expeller  of  lepers)  was  his  namesake  Amenophis,  the  son  of 
Papis."  (Josephus,  Vs.  Ap.  I,  26.)  Now  "the  monuments  show  that 
the  principal  personage  in  the  reign  of  Amenotep  III  was,  in  fact, 
Amenotep  surnamed  Si  Hapi,  that  is,  son  of  Hapi  or  Apis." 
{Schwartz,  §  4.)  Schwartz  infers  from  this  that  the  final  "Amen- 
ophis "  named  by  Manetho  is  this  Amenotep  or  Amenophis  III.  But 
we  learn  rather,  that  it  was  the  hitherto  unnamed  "Amenophis  IV" 
who  had  as  adviser  the  aged  namesake  who  had  been  his  father's 
prime  minister,— that  it  was  he,  the  son,  to  whom  Manetho  refers  back. 
The  driving  out  of  lepers  will  more  appropriately  fit  this  reign  of 
Amenophis  IV. 

§  115,  So  then,  this  final  "Amenophis"  of  Manetho's  list  being 
taken  .as  Amenophis  IV,  and  not  to  be  counted  (because  he  was  a 
duplicate  in  the  times  of  Orus  and  his  successors),  %  we  have 
the  three  preceding  reigns,  "  Armais,  Rameses,  and  Armesses 
Maiammon,"  as  being  duplicates  of  the  brothers  "Armais"  and 
"  Rameses  "  with  their  successor  "  Sethosis,"  who  are  here  given  (in 
Jos.,  Ap.  I,  15)  as  beginning  the  igth  dynasty.  And  thus  we  have 
Manetho's  i8th  dynasty  as  ending  after  Orus,  with  four  successors  oc- 
cupying 45  years,  9  mo.  ||     Add  to  these  the  preceding  "  Orus  36  yrs. 

5  mo.  -{-  Amenophis  (III)  30  yrs.  10  mo.  and  we  have  (by  this  list  of_ 
Manetho  in  Josephus)  a  total  of  113  years  of  this  i8th  dynasty,  reach- 

*  The  last  four  reigns  are  these:  "  Armais,  4  yrs.  i  mo.;  Rameses, 
I  yr.  4  mo.;    Armesses  Maiammon,  60  yrs.  2  mo.;    Amenophis,  19  yrs. 

6  mo.;"  total  85  yrs.  i  mo. 

t  See  my  essay  "  In  the  Days  of  Horns,"  etc. 

X  The  details  concerning  these  boundary  reigns  of  the  iSth  and  19th 
dynasties,  are  discussed  more  fully  in  my  essay,  "  In  the  Days  of 
Horus." 

II  §  116.  This  takes  off  (4  1-12  -(-  i  4-12  +  60  2-12  +  19  6-12=)  85 
yrs.  and  i  mo.  from  the  327  years  of  Manetho's  list  in  Josephus;  leav- 
ing his  18th  dynasty  there  as  241  years,  11  mo.  long  (Mariette  says  241 
for  18th  dy.),  as  follows: 


272 


PERIOD    D 


ing  back  to  the  death  of  Manetho's  "Thmosis"  or  Thotmes  IV;  so 
that  the  last  year  of  Thotmes  IV,  was  the  114th  year  before  the  igth 
dynasty. 

This  will  leave  241  years  in  the  i8th  dynasty,  just  the  amount 
which  Mariette gives.  And  the  total  of  Manetho's  dynasties  (as  given 
by  Eusebius)  from  this  point  will  go  thus: 

18th  dynasty  241  yrs. 


B.  C. 


19th 
2oth 

2ISt 
22d 
23d 
24th 


om 

Euseb.) 

194  yrs 
178  yrs 
130  yrs 

' '           about 

160  yrs 
44  yrs 
44  yrs. 

171 

1477  " 
1283  " 
II05  " 

975  " 

815  " 

771  " 

727  "  (E,  i  166.) 
991st  year. 

Put  this  with  what  Schwartz  informs  us  (Letter,  Apl.  16,  1893): 
"  Manetho  made  a  summary  of  all  the  years  he  had  enumerated, 
from  the  expulsion  of  the  Hyesos  in  the  5th  year  of  Amasis,  first  king 
of  the  i8th  dynasty  [then  beginning],  to  the  invasion  and  conquest  of 
the  Ethiopians  in  the  6th  year  [or  at  the  end]  of  Bocchoris,  and  gave 
the  total  as  ggo  years."  What  a  wonderful  confirmation  is  this  "990," 
that  our  reckoning  of  Manetho  (from  Eusebius)  is  right !  (See  Period 
E,  'i  166.) 


Probable  Exodus  Date. 

§  117.  Now  the  B.  C.  1477  of  the  Eusebian  Manetho  (above  shown 
at  §  106),  as  the  beginning  of  the  19th  dynasty  -j-  this  113  years  (Euse- 
bius) of  the  i8th  dynasty  =  B.  C.  1590  (-91),  just  the  date  of  the  exo- 
dus required  by  the  Scriptures,  with  the  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  read  as  the  "  580 


The  i8th  Dynasty. 

In  Jos.  Manetho. 

1.  Alisphragmuthosis. 

2.  Thetmosis,          25  y.    4  m.' 

Monuvients.         [Raivlinso?!.] 

1.  Aahmes. 

2.  Amenophis  I. 

3.  Cheron,                 3  y. 

4.  Amenophis,        20  y.    7  m. 

5.  Amesses  (sis.)    21  y.    9  m. 

6.  Mephres,            12  y.    9  m. 

3.  Thotmes  I.          .t  E 

4.  Thotmes  II.    i  2  >  « 

5.  Hatesu  (sis.)   V  >>|  ^ 

6.  Thotmes  III.  (  ?;o  ^ 

7.  Amenophis  II.  (over  30)* 

8.  Thotmes  IV.  (over  6  y.) 

9.  Amenophis  III.  (over  35) 
10.  Amenophis  IV. 

7.  Mephramuthosis,  25  y.  10  m. 

8.  Thmosis,               9  y.    8  m. 

9.  Amenophis,       30  y.  10  m. 
ID.  Orus,                    36  y.    5  m. 

10. 

Was 
Amen  IV. 

11.  Acencheres,         12  y.    1  m. 

12.  Ruthotes  (bro.)     9  y. 

13.  Acencheres,        12  y.    5  m. 

14.  Acencheres,        12  y.    3  m. 

12 
13 
14 

Horus.     -  ■ 
Three   )  0  ^' . 
other     /--^  S  g 
reigns    )  <  m.- 

11.  (Three     ^^ 

12.  -;    sons    V  «j3 

13.  /in-law      >,£ 

14.  Horus.        ■^'^ 

-  0 

241  y.  II  m.  (Mariette  241.) 

*  But  Rawlinson  says,  "  a  short  reign  of  7^or  8  years." 

No.  4  of  Manetho  appears  put  back  to  2. 
may  be  exchanged. 


The  yrs.  of  Nos.  9,  10 


THE   JUDGES  273 

years,"  which  we  have  shown  to  accord  with  Scripture  requirement. 
This  is  a  somewhat  remarkable  coincidence;  for  here  we  have  the  exo- 
dus brought  exactly  to  the  last  year  of  Thotmes  IV,  where  former 
writers  had  assigned  the  event;  and  this  date  we  reached  unexpectedly, 
without  any  theory,  by  simply  adding  up  the  numbers  of  Monetho  as 
given  in  Eusebius  and  Josephus.* 

§  ii8.  The  four  reigns  following  Orus  (in  Josephus  Manetho),  and 
occupying  45  yrs.,  g  mo.,  are,  in  the  Encyc.  Brit.,  called  three  reigns 
occupying  "  about  a  generation";  and  in  Chamber's  Cyc.  and  Rawlin- 
son  they  are  put  as  three  reigns  before  Orits,  said  (in  Chamber's)  to 
occupy  "about  33  years,"  /.•  e.,  12  yrs.,  9  mo,  less  than  Manetho's 
amount.  This  would  reduce  the  distance  back  to  the  death  of  Thot- 
mes IV  to  (113 — i2^/i=)  100  years,  or  to  his  accession  109  years;  which 
latter  from  the  exodus  as  B.  C.  1591  leaves  B.  C.  1482  for  the  begin- 
ning of  the  19th  dynasty,  the  same  as  given  by  Mariette  with  Euseb.'s 
194  substituted  for  his  i74.f     (See  §  107.) 

§  119.  On  the  whole,  the  most  probable  beginning  of  "the  580 
years  "  taken  as  the  date  for  the  exodus  (meant  in  I  Ki.  vi:  i)  is  at  the 
death  of  Thotmes  IV,  reckoned  as  in  B.  C.  1590  or  91,  where  we  have 
found  it  here  (^  117).  Nothing  can  be  brought  against  this  date  for  the 
death  of  Thotmes  IV,  and  it  is  about  the  date  set  by  Egyptologists 
generally.  There  are,  indeed,  two  or  three  monumental  inscriptions, 
which,  in  the  way  they  have  been  interpreted,  seem  to  date  even  Thot- 
mes III  as  late  as  B.  C.  1470  or  50;  and  Schwartz  has  taken  advantage 
of  this  circumstance  to  attempt  the  lowering  of  all  the  ancient  Egyp- 

*  Of  course,  a  number  of  variations  can  be  made  upon  this  reckon- 
ing, by  taking,  on  the  one  hand,  the  different  assignments  for  begin- 
ning the  19th  dynasty,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  different  lengths  of 
reigns  in  the  i8th  dynasty.  For  instance,  to  make  the  exodus  reach 
(9  8-12-I-25  10-12=)  36  yrs.  6  mo.  farther  into  the  i8th  dynasty,  i.  e.,  to 
the  death  of  Thotmes  III,  would  require  the  reduction  of  the  19th  dy- 
nasty to  (194 — 35>2=)  158  or  9  years;  and  Wilkinson,  Birch,  and  Lenor- 
mant  do  reduce  it  to  160  years.  Then  the  i^th  dynasty  will  begin 
(1477 — 35J^=)i442  B,  C;  and  Lepsius  has  it  1443  B.  C.  Again,  we 
might  say  (ii3th+9  8-12  =)  122  yrs.  back  to  the  accession  of  Thotmes 
IV  for  the  exodus;  and  then  (B.  C.  1590—122=)  1468  B.  C.  at  begin- 
ning of  19th  dynasty;  which  is  about  what  Mariette  and  the  Armenian  of 
Euseb.'s  Manetho  make  it. 

f  Schwartz  reduces  the  four  last  reigns  of  45^  yrs.  to  a  mere  13  (of 
"  Osasiph  "  taken  as  Orus);  and  besides  these  32%^  yrs.  of  reduction, 
he  drops  6  mo.  (from  the  25  yrs.,  10  months  in  Manetho);  so  that  he 
has  3354^  yrs.  less  than  the  (ii3+35;/<=)  148^^,  or  only  ii5'/4^  yrs.  back 
to  his  end  of  "  Mephres"  (or  Thotmes  III).  And  then  his  115X  yrs. 
back  to  his  place  for  the  exodus,  really  reach  (by  Manetho's  numbers) 
back  only  to  2%  yrs.  before  the  113  to  the  death  of  Thotmes  IV,  where 
we  reach  the  exodus.  Thus  he  and  we  have  the  exodus  about  the 
same  distance  back  into  the  i8th  dynasty. 


274  PERIOD    D 

tian  chronology  by  some  150  years  !  and  so  to  bring  Thotmes  III  as  the 
Pharaoh  of  the  exodus  in  harmony  with  "the  480th  year  of  I  Ki.  vi: 
I.     (See  in  the  Lon.  Theolog.  Monthly,  March,  i88g.) 

But  we  have  shown  (in  our  dissertation  on  Monumental  Inscriptions 
and  the  Egyptian  Year),  that,  by  a  more  rational  interpretation  of 
those  Sothiacal  manifestations  referred  to  in  the  inscriptions,  there  is 
no  such  late  dating  of  those  ancient  Pharaoh's;  and  that  the  Egyptolo- 
gists are  right,  when  (almost  without  exception)  they  assign  Thotmes 
IV  to  about  the  date  we  put  him,  as  ending  in  B.  C.  1590  or  '91.  Here 
then,  in  accordance  with  I  Ki.  vi:  i  (taken  as  "580"),  is  the  most 
probable  assignment  of' the  exodus. 

CHAPTER   III. 

Reasons  Given  for  Making  Meneptah  the  Pharaoh  of  the 
Exodus. 

§  120.  We  have  now  gone  as  far  as  Egyptian  chronology,  in  its 
uncertainty,  can  carry  us,  toward  the  reaching  of  a  probable  date  for 
the  exodus.  It  must  be  remembered,  as  we  showed  at  the  start,  that 
only  a  probable  date  can  be  expected  from  this  source.  And  we  have 
shown  that  the  midway  assignment  of  the  exodus  as  near  the  begin- 
ning of  the  19th  dynasty,  or  at  B.  C.  i49ioas  in  Usher  (in  accordance 
with  "the  480th  year")  is  now  almost  entirely  abandoned.  This 
leaves  only  two  theories:  (i)  The  Zrt'/(?r  ^i-5/^;z;;?^?«/ of  the  Egyptian 
Meneptah  as  the  pharaoh  of  the  exodus,  about  B.  C.  1320;  and  (2)  Our 
Earlier  Assignmettt,  which  we  here  have  indicated  as  the  most  probable 
Scripture  dating,  in  accordance  with  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  as  meaning  580  years, 
and  which  makes  Thotmes  IV  the  pharaoh  of  the  exodus,  B.  C.  1591. 
The  decision  lies  between  these  two  theories. 

What,  then,  we  have  now  to  do,  is  first  to  notice  the  arguments  used 
by  Egyptologists,  in  favor  of  their  unscriptural  assignment  of  Menep- 
tah as  the  probable  pharaoh  of  the  exodus.  These  we  find  set  forth 
most  fully  by  Prof.  Ebers  (in  the  6".  6".  Times,  Apl.  jo,  i88y). 

%  121.  (i)  Various  Egyptian  papyri  ascribed  to  the  times  of 
Ramses  II  and  his  son  Meneptah,  refer  frequently  to  "the  city  of 
Rameses  "  (supposed  to  be  Tanis).  Ebers  says:  "The  men  who 
were  compelled  to  carry  bricks  as  serfs  are  called  '  Aperu '  and 
'  Apuiriu  '  by  the  papyri.  *  *  *  These  papyri  would  give  conclu- 
sive evidence  of  the  exodus,  if  it  could  be  proved  that  the  '  Aperu ' 
were  Hebrews.  Chabas  was  the  first  to  pronounce  them  to  be  He- 
brews, and  all  his  colleagues  agi"eed  with  him,  until  H.  Brugsch 
objected  to  the  view  [also  Essenbehr  and  M.  Maspero,  says  Rawhn- 
son].  *  *  *  Stude,  on  account  of  difficulties  connected  with  the 
sounds  of  the  words,  maintained  that  the  Egyptian  name  '  Aperu  '  and 


THE    JUDGES  275 

'Apuiriu'  was  not  that  for  the  Hebrews."  Ebers  himself  thinks  it 
was.  The  Encyc.  Brittan.  says  doubtfully:  "If  the  identification 
were  certain,  we  should  have  much  reason  for  dating  the  oppression 
under  Ramses  II,  bringing  the  exodus  under  Menepteh.  The  diffi- 
culties of  this  theory  are  not  slight." 

§  122.  The  main  objection  against  understanding  the  word  'Aperu  ' 
to  mean  Hebrews,  which  Ebers  himself  says  "  appears  to  be  of  great 
weight,"  is  that  "among  the  monuments  discovered  by  Mariette  at 
Abydos,  there  is  one,  which,  although  it  very  probably  belongs  to  the 
time  of  the  13th  dynasty,  that  is,  a  long  time  before  the  Hebrews 
could  have  emigrated  to  Goshen, — yet  represents  builders  who  are 
called  'Aperu.'  So  then,  it  is  certain,  that  the  '  Aperu  '  was  a  general 
name  for  such  laborers,  without  any  special  reference  to  the  nation- 
ality as  being  Hebrews.  Moi-eover,  the  same  class  of  'Aperu'  are 
named  long  after  the  exodus  of  the  Hebrews  "  at  the  beginning  of  the 
20th  dynasty,  when  it  is  said  that  2,083  o^  them  lived  under  Ramses 
III,  in  Heliopolis,  the  biblical  On." 

There  is,  therefore,  no  particular  identification  of  Hebrews  in  Egypt 
in  the  time  of  Ramses  II  and  Meneptah,  more  than  at  other  times. 
Such  representations  of  enslaved  laborers  at  work  ai"e  found  200  hun- 
dred years  earlier  than  that;  and  indicate  Thotmes  III  as  the  Pharaoh 
of  the  Hebrew  oppression,  full  more  strongly  than  in  the  case  of  Ram- 
ses II.  (See  afterward,  §  131.) 

§  123.  (2)  The  recent  excavation  of  the  ruins  of  Tell-el-Maskootah 
by  the  famous  Geneva  Egyptologist,  M.  Naville,  have  convinced 
scholars  that  this  is  the  treasure  city  "  Pithom"  spoken  of  in  Ex.  i:  11; 
and  as  this  was  built  along  with  another  city  "  Rameses  "  (supposed  to 
be  Tanis),  it  is  argued,  that  they  must  both  have  been  built  by  the 
Hebrews  for  Ramses  II  as  the  oppressor  of  the  Hebrews.  But,  what 
if  we  do  thus  have  the  interesting  evidence  of  inspection,  that  the 
Hebrew  account  of  those  building  operations  is  true  ?  That  by  no 
means  shows  when  they  built  those  cities;  it  may  have  been  genera- 
tions before  Ramses  II  reigned.  It  is  said  that  statues  of  Ram- 
esses  II  were  found  at  the  uncovered  ruins.  But  that  may  only  indi- 
cate that  he  rebuilt  or  enlarged  works  first  built  generations  before  by 
the  Thotmes-es;  which  we  know  to  have  been  the  case  in  many  in- 
stances. "The  fixing  of  their  sites  (the  treasure  cities  built)  has  no 
bearing  at  all  on  the  question  of  date."  {Major  Conder,  translating  the 
tablets.)  There  is  here  no  evidence  that  the  exodus  took  place  in  those 
late  times.     The  only  real  arguments  for  that  date  are  the  following: 

t^  124.  (3)  One  of  the  cities  they  built  is  called  "  Raamses " 
(Ex.  i:  11).  Therefore  it  may  be  argued,  this  building  must  have  been 
done  by  the  Hebrews  after  the  Rameses  began  to  reign.  So  it  appears 
at  first  thought.  But  notice,  that  the  land  of  Goshen  itself  was  called 
"  Rameses."  (Gen.xlvii:  6,  11.)     Therefore,  the  city  built  (or  improved) 


276  *  PERIOD    D 

was  called  "  Raamses,"  perhaps  as  meaning  chief  city  of  the  land  oi 
Rameses;  and  the  Ramses  kings  may  have  got  that  name  from  the 
region  where  they  originated,  not  the  reverse.  Many  think  the  use  of 
this  name  in  Genesis,  and  perhaps  also  in  Exodus  is  by  prolepsis. 
"  Pithom  and  the  city  afterwards  called  Raamses."  We  have  no  as- 
surance, that  any  one  of  the  Ramesides  had  yet  reigned  when  the 
"  treasure  city  "  \yas  built. 

§  125.  (4)  Ramses  II  made  several  invasions  into  Syria,  passing 
with  his  armies  through  Palestine,  and  making  conquests  there;  all 
which  (it  may  be  argued)  must  have  occurred  before  the  Isi^aelites  took 
possession  of  Canaan,  since  their  Bible  history  gives  no  hint  of  any 
such  Egyptian  invasion  after  the  conquest  of  Joshua.  This  argument, 
not  named  by  Ebers  and  not  generally  put  forward,  is  really  the  only 
point  of  any  weight  seeming  to  favor  the  late  assignment  of  the  exodus 
after  Ramses  II,  contrary  to  the  Bible  chronology.  But  there  is  in 
this  circumstance  no  real  collision  between  Egyptian  and  Scripture 
history. 

For,  the  book  of  Judges  is  by  no  means  a  full  history  of  those 
times,  but  only  an  outline  of  the  eras  that  marked  the  Jewish  progress, 
with  a  few  only  of  the  most  striking  events  mentioned  which  particu- 
larly affected'  the  Israelitish  estate.  Foreign  affairs  notdefinitely  re- 
lated to  them,  are  entirely  ignored.  And  the  Egyptian  invasion  of 
Syria  was  such.  The  scene  of  conflict  was  on  the  Orontes,  north  of 
Lebanon.  "  Kadesh  on  the  Orontes  "  was  captured,  which  was  head- 
quarters of  the  Amorites,  classed  under  the  general  term  "Hittites.'* 
But  this  was  a  region  not  pertaining  to  Israel,  and  the  war  there  did 
not  ti"ouble  them. 

§  126.  True,  the  Egyptian  army  "went  home  in  triumph  through 
Palestine,"  as  Rawlinson  says,  and  Salem  (or  Jerusalem)  and  one  or 
two  other  towns  then  unpossessed  by  the  Israelites,  but  held  still  by 
Canaanites,  were  captured  on  the  way.  But  no  harm  was  done  to 
Hebrews,  who  are  not  even  mentioned  in  the  Egyptian  accounts,  per- 
haps because  they  only  formed  the  rural  population  of  the  country, 
not  as  yet  much  congregated  in  cities.  The  route  from  Lebanon  down 
past  Jerusalem  was  the  public  highway  for  all  nations  from  Mesopo- 
tamia to  Egypt,  and  the  march  even  of  an  enemy  that  way,  in  those 
early  times,  did  not  molest  the  Jews  sufficiently  to  be  described  in 
their  brief  history,  so  long  as  they  as  a  people  were  let  alone: 

The  Jews  seem  to  have  had  a  prejudice  against  even  noticing  their 
old  oppressors;  and  the  Egyptians  in  turn  seem  to  have  been  shy  of 
searching  out  or  troubling  a  people  whose  strange  Deity  had  wrought 
them  such  havoc.  Providence  appears  thus  to  have  reared  a  barrier  of 
moral  influence,  or  superstition,  between  the  two  races,  to  preserve  (as 
at  first  to  separate)  the  chosen  people,  left  so  near  to  their  former  foes. 
It  is  only  in  such  manner,  that  we  can  account  for  the  striking  fact 


THE    JUDGES  2(  i 

that  nothing  is  said  about  Egyptian  affairs  through  all  the  Scripture 
history  of  over  500  years,  from  Joshua  to  Solomon, — filling  the  book  of 
Judges  and  the  two  books  of 0 Samuel.  Besides  about  nine  i^eferences 
to  the  exodus  (Jud.  ii:  i,  12,  and  x:  11,  and  xix:  30,  I  Sam.  iv:  8,  and 
vi:  6,  and  x:  18,  and  xii:  6,  and  xv:  6),  there  are  only  two  mentions  of  an 
individual  as  an  "  Egyptian"  in  the  days  of  David  (I  Sam.  xxx:  11- 
13;  II  Sam.  xxiii:  21).  Not  another  word  ^bout  Egypt  during  the  500 
years. 

^  127.  The  whole  lower  region  from  Migdol  of  Egypt  up  to  the 
Dead  Sea  was  conquei'ed  by  the  Egyptians,  as  well  as  the  regions  be- 
yond Lebanon.  But  Israel  remained  unmolested,  as  under  the  shel- 
tering wing  of  Jehovah;  until  at  length,  after  the  mutual  prejudice  and 
shyness  of  the  early  times  of  first  separation  had  died  away,  Egypt  at 
length  became  the  frequent  helper  of  Israel  against  other  foreign  foes; 
insomuch  that  the  prophets  had  to  warn  them  against  too  much 
"  looking  to  Egypt ""  for  help. 

Canaan  was  for  a  long  time  full  of  unsubdued  cities  and  fortiiica- 
tions  of  the  aborigines,  which  Israel  could  not  conquer,  as  the  book  of 
Judges  shows  (Comp.  Dent,  vii:  22) — and  it  was  even  a  help  to  Israel 
for  Egypt  to  pass  through  and  subdue  such  places,  though  not  a  mat- 
ter to  record  as  part  of  their  own  history.  To  see  how  readily  an 
Egyptian  army  might  pass  through  Palestine,  and  even  capture  such  a 
fortress  hostile  to  the  Jews,  without  causing  them  any  disturbance, 
look  at  the  case  of  the  Pharaoh  whose  daughter  in  later  times  Solomon 
married.  (I  Ki.  iii:  i,  and  ix:  16,  17.)  We  are  told,  that  thereupon 
"  Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt,  had  gone  up,  and  taken  Gezer,  and  burnt  it 
with  fire,  and  slain  the  Canaanites  that  dwelt  in  the  city,  and  given  it 
for  a  present  (or  dowry)  unto  his  daughter,  Solomon's  wife.  And  Sol- 
omon built  Gezer."  This  inroad  of  Pharaoh  was  certainlj'  not  de- 
spoiling but  helping  Solomon,  though  an  entirely  foreign  affair  within 
Solomon's  borders,  not  a  part  of  Solomon's  own  administration  or  his- 
tory. In  like  manner,  the  earlier  doings  of  Ramses  II  and  his  associ- 
ates were  a  real  (though  unmeant)  help  to  Israel,  not  needing  any 
special  mention. 

>;  128.  In  the  Chicago  "Advance  (April  28,  1892,  p.  3464.  Prof. 
Sayce  announces  the  important  discovery  from  the  monuments,  that 
Ramses  III  (B.  C.  1200)  conquered  the  "  country  of  Salem"  and  the 
"Springs  of  Hebron,"  etc.,  which  were  aftcj-rvai'd  the  tenitory  of 
Judah.  Here  we  have  another  Egyptian  inroad  made  into  Palestine 
still  later  by  100  years  than  that  of  Ramses  II;  which  proves  conclu- 
sively, that  the  late  putting  of  the  exodus  as  in  Meneptah's  reign  is 
open  to  the  same  objection  as  the  earlier  assignment,— so  that  these 
later  intrusions  into  the  land  can  not  be  offered  against  either  view  of 
the  exodus. 


278  PERIOD    D 

Here  is  a  leading  authority:  "  The  chief  strongholds  were  occupied 
by  the  Canaanites,  Hittites,  Jebusites,  etc.,  during  Egypt's  19th  dy^ 
nasty;  and  are  so  represented  on  the  monuments  describing  the  at- 
tacks on  them  by  Seti  I  and  Ramesses  I.  The  open  country  was  held 
by  the  Amorites,  against  whose  iron  chariots  Israel  could  not  stand 
(Jud.  i:  19);  so  the  district  from  the  south  border  northward  is  called  in 
the  monuments  'the  land  of  the  Amorites.'  (Comp.  Jud.  v.  6,)  'the 
highways  were  not  occupied,  *  *  *  the  villages  ceased  *  *  * 
war  was  in  the  gates  (of  the  strongholds).  Was  there  a  shield  or  spear 
seen  among  40,000  in  Israel? '  Thus  the  Egyptian  armies  in  traversing 
Syria  would  encounter  no  Israelites  in  the  field,  and  would  only  en- 
counter Israel's  foes."     {Faussefs  Bib.  Cyc,  1880,  art.  "Egypt.") 

J.  Schwartz,  Egyptologist,  of  New  York,  also  strenuously  urges  the 
same  view. 

g  129.  There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  the  contemporaneous  history 
requiring  the  later  date  for  the  exodus  which  Egyptologists  claim.  And 
we  have  absolutely  nothing  in  connection  with  Meneptah ,  to  indicate 
him  especially  as  the  Pharaoh  of  the  exodus.  Indeed,  that  claim  is 
founded  almost  entirely  upon  the  fitness  of  his  predecessor  Ramses  II 
to  be  the  previous  pharaoh  of  the  oppression, — as  is  indicated  in  Miss 
Edwards'  opinion  (here  I  156.)  But  we  have  seen  that  the  monuments 
and  inscriptions  no  more  point  out  Ramses  III  than  they  do  Thotmes 
III  (over  150  years  before),  as  the  oppressor  of  the  Hebrews.  We 
therefore  turn  now  to  notice  the  indications  which  favor  this  last  named 
view  of  Thotmes  III  as  engaged  in  the  Hebrew  oppression,  with  Thot- 
mes-I  V  as  the  Pharaoh  of  the  exodus. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Reasons  Pointing  to  Thotmes  IV  as  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus. 

l  130.  (i)  We  have  already  seen  that  the  Bible  Chronology 
vvhich  clearly  brings  the  exodus  "580  years"  from  the  founding  of 
Solomon's  temple,  viz.,  in  B.  C.  1591,  thus  carries  it  just  about  to  the 
death  of  Thotmes  IV,  as  assigned  by  Egyptologists  generally,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  true  reckoning  of  Sothiacal  inscriptions.  This  date, 
therefore,  has  the  primary  advantage  of  being  in  accoui  ivith 
Sa-ipture,  whereas  the  Maneptah  date  (about  B.  C.  1320)  is  directly 
opposed  to  all  Scripture  reckoning,— as  strongly  opposed  to  the  "480" 
number  of  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  as  to  any  other  number  over  300  years. 

I  131.  (2)  The  inscriptions  give  the  most  vivid  exhibit  of  foreign 
slaves  (or  the  "  Aperu  ")  in  the  time  of  Thotmes,  driven  to  their  brick- 
making  work.  "  In  a  chamber  of  a  tomb  in  the  hills  of  Abd-el-Quviah, 
there  is  a  graphic  representation  of  the  making  of  bricks  by  captives  of 
Thotmes  III,  many  of  whom  show  strong  Jewish  features."    {Bnigsch, 


THE    JUDGES  279 

Hist.  Egypt,  /,  j/j.)  Tlie  overseers  are  represented  with  sticks,  and 
'  insist  with  vehemence  on  obeying  the  ordei"s  of  the  great  skilled  lord, ' 
*  ■"  *  and  the  overseer  speaks  thus  to  the  laborers:  '  Tlie  stick 
is  in  my  hand,  he  not  idle. '  ' '  Compare  this  with  the  Biblical  account  (Ex. 
v:  17),  where  we  have  almost  the  identical  words  of  the  overseeer;  and 
there  can  scarcely  be  any  reasonable  doubt  that  this  pictorial  repre- 
sentation and  Biblical  account  of  the  oppression  refer  to  the  same 
thing."  {J.  Schwartz,  in  Tlieolog.  MontJiIy,  London,  March,  1889,  §  14 
a.)     See  the  description  of  this  in  Geike's  Hours  with  the  Bible. 

And  yet,  so  learned  a  man  as  H.  B.  Tristam,  D.  D.,  L.  L.  D.,  F. 
R.  S.,  in  the  S.  S.  Times,  April  14,  1894,  falls  into  the  mistake  of  say- 
ing :  ' '  When  Ranieses,  the  great  builder,  appears,  he  compels  the  foreign 
(Hebrew)  shepherds  to  toil  in  the  unaccustonted  work  of  brickmaking 
and  bricklaying."  (!) 

■^132.  (3)  Says  Schwartz.  (Theolog.  Monthly,  ^14  b):  "To 
make  the  identification  doubly  sure,  there  is  a  cuiious  fact  brought  out 
by  Palmer  (Egypt.  Chron.  I,  194,  195),  as  follows:  '  The  monuments 
supply  another  indication,  approaching  still  nearer  to  a  proof  that  he 
[Thotmes  III]  and  no  other  is  the  Pharaoh  of  the  exodus  [rather  of 
the  oppression,  say  50  years  before] .  For,  in  the  mounds  of  Hehopolis, 
one  of  the  cities,  according  to  the  Lxx,  which  were  fortified  by  the 
labor  of  the  Hebrews,  many  sun-burned  bricks  bearing  the  stamp  of 
Thotmes  HI  hsive  been  used, — which  on  being  broken  show  that  they 
were  made  without  straw;  whereas  ordinarily  the  earth  of  which  these 
bricks  are  made  is  held  together  by  a  mixture  of  chopped  straw.  It 
is  impossible-  not  to  see  how  this  singularity  is  accounted  for  by  the 
Scripture.'  " 

i^  133.  (4)  It  is  quite  evident,  and  is  generally  accepted  by 
scholars,  that  Jacob  removed  to  Egypt  under  the  reign  of  the  Hycsos, 
or  "  Shepherd  Kings,"  and  not  long  before  the  close  of  their  reign;  so 
that  the  rising  of  "  a  new  king  that  knew  not  Joseph  "  was  the  coming 
in  of  the  new  i8th  dynasty,  in  which  the  several  Thotmes-es  ruled. 
(Comp.  Gen.  xlvi:  34,  and  Ex.  i:  8.)  Now  the  stay  of  the  Israelites  in 
Egypt  was  but  215  years,  as  all  the  Jewish  and  ancient  chronology  is 
agreed,  and  as  is  absolutely  required  by  the  apostle's  language  in  Gal. 
iii:  16, 17.  This  distance  after  the  Hycsos  entirely  forbids  so  late  a  date 
for  the  exodus  as  the  reign  of  Meneptah  in  the  last  part  of  the  19th 
dynasty,  and  it  readily  agrees  with  the  end  of  Thotmes  IV  in  the  i8th 
dynasty  as  the  exodus  date;  80  years  from  which  carry  us  back  (by 
Manetho's  numbers  in  Josephus)  to  10  years  after  the  death  of  Thot- 
mes I  for  the  birth  of  Moses  in  the  times  of  oppression;  and  40  years 
more  carry  us  to  the  beginning  of  the  i8th  dynasty,  16  years  after  the 
deatli  of  Joseph,  as  the  dynasty  of  the  "new  king  tliat  knew  not 
J..se,.h." 


280  PERIOD    D 

Says  the  Encyc.  Brittan.  (Art.  Egypt):  "There  is  the  remarkahle 
occurrence  of  a  name  similar  to  that  of  Jacob,  or  identical  with  it,  in 
the  record  of  the  conquests  of  Thotmes  III.  This  may  only  be  a  reminis- 
cence of  Jacob,  as  M.  de  Ronge  suggests.  But  it  would  be  more  natural 
to  take  it  to  indicate  that  the  exodus  was  anterior  to  [or  in  times  not 
far  from]  the  time  of  Thotmes. 

§  134.  (5)  Geike  (in  Hours  with  the  Bible,  Moses,  ch.  Ill) 
says:  "The  Bible  history  demands  the  continuance  of  a  long 
reign''  in  those  days  of  oppression;  and  this  he  uses  as  an  argu- 
ment for  Rameses  II  as  the  oppressor.  (But  what  does  he  mean  by 
saying,  "Moses  on  his  return  to  Egj'pt  after  his  40  years  in  Midian 
found  the  same  kijtg  still  on  the  throne "  !  On  the  contrary, 
see  Ex.  ii:  23,  and  iv:  ig.)  Rather  is  this  an  argument  for  Thot- 
mes III  as  the  great  and  long-reigning  oppressor.  His  reign  was  54 
years,  as  all  assert  from  the  monuments,  in  which  he  included  the  pre- 
vious reign  of  his  sister,  and  most  likely  the  reign  of  his  brother  before 
her.  It  is  a  striking  story,  the  history  of  this  family,  from  Thotmes  I 
to  Thotmes  IV,  during  a  period  of  go  years,  the  period  of  Egypt's 
highest  dominion  and  supremacy,  as  all  writers  concede.  Read  Raw- 
linson's  glowing  picture  of  those  kings,  especially  of  Thotmes  III,  and 
see  how  fitted  was  this  king  with  his  family  to  be  the  great  oppressor 
of  Isi'ael. 

§  135.  The  great  Thotmes  I,  dying,  left  his  throne  to  his  three  chil- 
dren, two  sons  and  a  daughter.  The  elder  son  first  reigned  as  Thot- 
mes II  (for  20  years  and  7  months  by  Josephus);  then  the  daughter 
Hatasu  i^eigned  (for  21  years  and  g  months,  according  to  Manetho  in 
Josephus),  a  large  part  of  it  with  her  younger  brother  as  partner.  Then 
that  brother  reigned  alone  as  Thotmes  III  (for  12  years  and  g  months 
more).  The  whole  reign  of  the  thi'ee  children  (54  years  by  the  monu- 
ments) was  a  period  of  unparalleled  supi'emacy  and  autocratic  power, 
as  well  as  of  building  operations  on  the  grandest  scale,  with  enforced 
slave  labor.  Especially  was  Thotmes  III  the  most  brilliant  as  well  as 
the  most  dariiag  of  all  the  Phai^aohs,  his  spii'it  being  dominant  from  his 
very  boyhood  when  his  father  died,  and  leading  him  to  swallow-  up  to 
himself  all  the  achievments  of  his  bi'other  and  sister  before  him. 

Such  a  family,  and  such  a  dominating  spirit  in  it,  might  well  be  the 
operator  of  the  Hebrew  oppression.  The  birth  of  Moses  will  come 
after  the  first  g^  of  the  54  years  i"eckoned  to  Thotmes  III  (when 
Hatasu,  "Pharaoh's  daughter,"  was  beginning  to  assume  authority 
with  her  first  brother),  and  the  remaining  44J4  years  reckoned  to 
Thotmes  III  will  extend  beyond  Moses'  flight  to  Midian, — while  the 
reign  of  his  son  Amenophis  II  for  25  years  10  months,  and  of  his  grand- 
son Thotmes  IV  for  g  years  8  months,  will  carry  us  just  80  years  to  the 
Exodus  as  ending  the  reign  of  Thotmes  IV  in  B.  C.  isgo  [gi]. 


THE    JUDGES  281 

^  136.  (6)  Queen  Hatesu  was  well  fitted  to  be  the  "Pharaoh's 
daughter"  who  brought  up  Moses.  For  already  then,  in  her  compar- 
ative girlhood,  she  began  to  be  j^rominent  as  ruling  with  her  brother; 
and  before  long,  on  his  death,  she  took  the  reins  of  government,  striv- 
ing for  a  long  time  to  keep  down  her  younger  brother,  Thotmes  III. 
She  seems  to  have  been  without  family  of  her  own;  but  ambitious  and 
somewhat  unscrupulous,  especially  as  she  grew  older  in  power.  And 
she  might  well  wish  to  adopt  an  heir  (like  the  beautiful  Hebrew  boy), 
in  the  hope  to  leave  the  throne  to  him,  instead  of  the  brother  she  was 
striving  to  displace.  This  trio  of  rulers,  the  children  of  one  great 
Pharaoh,  would  well  be  called  among  the  people  "the  daughter  of 
Pharaoh"  and  "the  sons  of  Pharaoh,"  without  need  of  further  des- 
ignation. And  yet,  the  pious  Moses,  growing  up,  might  well  fly  from 
such  a  despotic  schemer's  house,  and  refuse  longer  "  to  be  called  the 
son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter."* 

^  137.  Josephus  gives  the  name  of  Pharaoh's  daughter  as  "  Ther- 
muthis,"  and  he  gives  the  Manetho  name  for  Queen  Hatesu  as 
"Amesses."  But  in  Eusebius  the  name  of  Pharaoh's  daughter  is 
"Meri"is";  and  Rawlinson  (Hist.  Anc.  Egypt,  p.  133)  sa3's,  "Thot- 
mes HI  married  Hatesu-Merira."  As  this  is,  in  its  first  part,  the  name 
of  his  sister,  Queen  Hatesu,  so  it  may  in  full  be  her  name,  and  may 
thus  show  that  "Merii^a,"  or  "Merris,"  as  in  Eusebius,  was  indeed 
"Hatesu-Merira"  the  queen,  daughter  of  Pharaoh.  It  would  seem 
that  this  family  name  was  taken  on  by  the  brother's  wife,  or  else  that 
he  is  represented  as  marrying  his  own  sister  with  whom  he  reigned,  (a 
custom  common  in  that  family),  f 

?  .138.  (7)  Though  the  Egyptians  seem  to  have  carefully  avoided 
giving  any  account  of  the  Exodus,  so  disastrous  to  them,  yet  Manetho 
betrays  hints  of  the  truth,  mixed  fabulously  in  his  somewhat  confused 


*  "  Professor  Hechler,  in  his  address  before  the  Oriental  Congress 
in  London,  on  '  Egyptology  and  the  Bible,'  expressed  his  firm  convic- 
tion that  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus  (oppression)  was  Thotmes  HI  and 
not  Rameses  II,  and — that  the  princess  who  saved  Moses  from  drown- 
ing was  just  such  a  person  as  Queen  Makara  Hatesu." — {Boston 
Watchman,  Oct.,  iSg2.) 

■\  Schwartz  (in  Essay,  Jan.,  i8go,  P.  II,  p.  IV)  says,  that  Jewish 
tradition  "preserved  by  Artapanas  and  Abulfaragius,"  makes  "  Pha- 
raoh's daughter  "  to  be  wife  instead  of  daughter  of  Thotmes  I,  and 
that  her  name  in  Artapanas  is  "Merrhis,"  but  on  the  monuments 
"Amon-Merit"  (Rawlinson  says  "  Arhmes  "),  his  own  sister,  daugh- 
ter of  Amenophis  I;  who  (those  authors  say)  married  Chenophres, 
called  Cheon  by  Manetho  in  Josephus,  that  is  Chanera  Tutmes  I. 
"  Her  name  Merit  explains  the  'Thermuthis'  of  Josephus  and  the 
Trcmotisa  of  Abulfaragius;  for  MERT  reversed  ==  TREM-otisa." 
(Sc//-a'a/-/z\)  The  daughter  "Hatesu"  may  have  derived  the  name 
"Hatesu-Merira"  or  Merris  from  her  mothei".  Egyptian  notables 
generally  had  several  names. 


282 


PERIOD    D 


narrative.  He  describes  the  Hycsos  or  "  Shepherd  Kings  "  as  finally 
bargained  with,  and  allowed  to  leave  the  country  peaceably;  while  the 
monuments  show  them  to  have  been  forcibly  expelled.  He  has  thus 
mixed  in  with  that  affair  a  tradition  of  another  departure  actually  by 
permission,  viz.,  the  Hebrew  Exodus,  not  very  long  after  the  Hycsos 
removal.  Moreover,  he  says  that  the  very  king  who  bargained  with 
them  to  go  in  peace  was  named  Thermosis  or  Thetmosis,  {Jos.  7>s.  Ap.  /, 
^4-  -^J))  the  son  or  descendant  of  another  king,  Alisphragmuthosis; 
whereas,  the  monuments  show  that  the  expeller  of  the  Hycsos  was 
Aahmes,  first  king  of  the  i8th  dynasty,  a  predecessor  of  the  Thotmes 
kings. 

We  here  see  that  Manetho  mixes  with  the  Hycsos  account  the  name 
of  the  subsequent  Exodus  Pharaoh,"  Thetmosis,"  whom  Schwartz 
therefore  supposes  to  be  Thotmes  HI,  but  whom  we  are  showing  to  be 
more  probably  his  grandson,  Thotmes  IV. 

Still  further,  Manetho,  in  his  later  attempt  (here  I  26)  to  identify 
the  Hebrews  with  the  "lepers"  banished  by  Amenophis  IV,  does 
thus  imply,  that  there  was  a  vague  tradition  of  the  Jews  having 
gone  from  Egypt  some  time  during  the  Amenophis  and  Thetmos  kings, 
which  he  was  here  mixing  with  a  subsequent  banishment  of  lepers, 
perhaps  some  leprous  remnant  of  the  Hebrews,  left  behind  in  their 
flight.  All  these  vague  and  misleading  hints  from  Manetho  point  to  a 
real  Hebrew  Exodus,  known  to  tradition  but  concealed  in  Egyptian 
history,  and  lying  somewhere  between  the  story  of  the  "Shepherd 
Kings  "  and  the  stox'y  of  the  "  lepers."  All  the  above  arguments  indi- 
cate Thotmes  III  as  Pharaoh  of  the  oppression,  while  other  indica- 
tions point  out  Thotmes  IV  as  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus. 

\  139.  (8)  The  monumental  history  indicates  that  after  Thotmes 
IV,  there  had  been  a  loss  of  troops  as  well  as  of  laborers  and 
builders  in  Egypt,  leading  to  great  efforts  to  replace  them.  We  find 
that  the  immediate  successor  of  Thotmes  IV  (viz.,  Amenophis  III), 
though  engaged  in  the  erection  of  several  structures,  -yet  refrained 
from  the  grand  military  movements  which  had  characterized  his 
predecessors.  "  His  reign  was  not  very  military.  He  did  not  extend 
the  power  of  Egypt,  either  in  the  North  or  the  South.  He  was  con- 
tent to  make  raids  against  negro  tribes,  and  to  carry  off  into 
captivity  hundreds  of  their  numbers.  But  it  is  absurd  to  speak  of  him 
as  a  conquering  monarch.  I  can  not  agree  with  Bruscgh  in  this.  His 
negro-hunts  were  certainly  not  great  wars."  {Raiulinsoti,  Anc.  Egypt, 
p.  143.) 

To  such  straits  of  negro-hunting  were  the  Egyptians  reduced,  to 
get  slaves  for  their  brick-making  and  building  operations,  when  they 
had  lost  their  Hebrew  subjects;  and  to  such  ignoble  exploits  were  the 
weakened  forces  of  Egypt  applied,  when  they  had  been  decimated  by 


THE   JUDGES  283 

the  disaster  at  the  Red  Sea.  In  the  subsequent  reign  of  Amenophis 
IV,  "  there  were  only  a  few  military  expeditions  "  {Rawlinson),  and 
many  discords  followed.  "Egypt  was  still  recognized  as  Mistress  of 
Syria;  but  we  have  no  evidence  of  tribute  from  Mesopotamia  subse- 
quent to  Amenophis  III."  [Id.)  Long  afterward,  in  the  reign  of 
Rameses  II,  we  are  told:  "  In  realit)',  he  himself  does  not  appear  to 
have  shown  any  i^emarkable  military  genius,  or  to  have  effected  any 
important  conquests.  «  *  *  His  object  rather  was  to  obtain' 
captives,  vast  bodies  of  foreign  laborers  being  necessary  for  his  nu- 
merous and  gigantic  building  projects."     {Rawliiisoi.) 

%  140.  Still  at  it,  we  see,  trying  to  make  good  the  loss  of  the 
Hebrews.  We  see  that  Rameses  II,  instead  of  building  his  structures 
by  tJieir  service,  was  scouring  the  world  for  prisoners  of  war  to  take 
their  place,  long  since  vacated  by  the  Exodus.  His  weak  successor, 
Meneptah,  was  engaged  in  disastrous  wars,  "and  built  no  great 
edifice.  He  was  vacillating,  and  had  the  name  of  appropriating  to 
himself  the  work  of  former  kings,  by  ei'asing  their  names  and  substi- 
tuting his  own.  He  received  into  Egypt  as  new  settlers  several  tribes 
of  Bedouins,  who  were  desirous  of  exchanging  their  nomadic  habits  for 
a  more  settled  life;  and  he  established  them  in  the  rich  lands  about  the 
city  of  Pithom."  (So  says  Rawlinson.)  Instead  of  being  at  all  like 
the  oppressing  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus,  he  was  a  weak  monai^ch,  evi- 
dently trying  to  i^e-settle  the  land  of  Goshen,  long  since  depopulated 
by  the  departure  of  the  Hebrews. 

Rawlinson  thus  desciibes  the  doings  of  those  times:  "One,  and 
perhaps  the  main,  result  of  Rameses'  expeditions  was,  the  acquisition 
of  many  thousands  of  captives,  some  Asiatic,  some  African,  carried  off 
from  their  homes  by  the  grasping  conqueror,  whose  main  object  this 
seems  to  have  been."  Says  Lenormant:  "Man-hunts  upon  a  mon- 
strous scale  were  organized  throughout  the  whole  coifntry  of  the 
Soudan.  The  aim  was  no  longer,  as  under  the  Thotmes-es,  to  extend 
the  frontiers  of  Egypt.  The  principal  or  sole  object  was  to  obtain 
slaves.  Nearly  every  year  there  were  great  razzias  which  started  for 
Ethiopia  and  returned  dragging  after  them  thousands  of  captive  blacks 
of  all  ages  and  both  sexes,  laden  with  chains.  And  the  principal 
episodes  of  these  negro-hunts  were  sculptured  upon  the  walls  of  tem- 
ples as  glorious  exploits."  It  was  of  course  in  connection  with  his 
passion  for  '  great  works  '  that  Rameses  desired  and  obtained  this  vast 
addition  to  his  store  of  '  naked  human  strength.'  "  [Ratvlinson,  p.  /6j, 
Seethe  like  given  in  Gcike,  cli.  III.) 

Thus  were  the  Rameses  kings  occupied  in  filling  Egy])t  witli  slaves, 
made  necessary  by  the  Exodus  of  the  Hebrews  before  this  in  Ww  time  of 
the  Thotmes  kings. 

^  141.     (9)    The  iiciv  rclitrion  introduced  into  Egypt  at  the  expiration 


284  PERIOD    D 

of  the  reign  of  Thotmes  IV,  indicates  the  awakening  of  a  moral  influ- 
ence, such  as  would  be  likely  to  follow  the  marvelous  plagues  and 
Red  Sea  disaster,  when  Jehovah  did  "marvelous  things  in  the  sight 
of  their  fathers,  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the  field  of  Zoan."  (Psa. 
Ixxviii:  12.)  Amenophis  III,  the  immediate  successor  of  Thotmes  IV, 
whose  sudden  overthrow  at  the  Red  Sea  may  have  brought  him  unex- 
pectedly to  the  throne,  was  the  son  of  an  Ethiopian  mother  (for  the 
father  was  the  first  monarch  except  Aahmes  who  had  married  a  for- 
eigner); and  he  himself  married  a  strange  foreign  wife,  Tai,  whose 
nationality  can  not  be  made  out.  Under  her  influence  new  and  foreign 
ideas  of  religion  were  introduced  in  this  reign,  having  more  reference 
to  one  supreme  Deity  than  had  been  usual  to  the  Egyptians.  It  was  a 
sort  of  sun-worship  in  a  higher  form,  the  "sun's  disk"  being  adored 
as  representing  the  great  God;  and  hence  the  wife  encouraging  it  is 
thought  by  some  to  have  been  from  Arabia.  Possibly,  she  was  mar- 
ried as  some  pious  waif  jDitched  upon  in  the  superstitious  horror  awak- 
ened at  the  flight  and  miraculous  escape  of  the  Hebrews. 

^  142.  At  any  rate,  this  king  proceeded  to  "  favor  changes  in  the 
state  religion,  which  were  looked  upon  as  revolutionary,"  says  Raw- 
linson.  He  must  be  viewed  as  having  paved  the  way  "for  the  fuller 
establishment  of  the  new  religion  "  in  the  reign  of  his  son.  For,  "he 
instituted  a  new  festival  in  honor  of  the  Solar  Disc,  exalting  one  God 
only."  The  son  Amenophis  IV  next  ruled  under  direction  of  his 
foreign  mother,  and  fully  carried  out  the  new  religion.  He  was  a 
singular  character,  with  strange  foreign  phj'siognomy;  and  the  new 
worship  created  two  great  parties,  and  convulsed  Egypt  for  a  long 
time.  Horus  was  set  up  as  a  rival  king,  and  after  a  generation  or  two, 
under  the  Rameses  kings  of  the  19th  dynasty,  the  old  religion  was  at 
length  fully  restored. 

It  is  not  hard  to  see  in  all  this  religious  awakening  under  Amenophis 
III  and  IV,  following  right  after  the  father  Thotmes  IV  disappears, 
the  moral  effect  for  a  season  of  Jehovah's  miraculous  manifestations 
attending  the  Exodus.  Must  not  such  displays  of  divine  power  have 
produced  just  such  a  revival  of  the  idea  of  one  Supreme  Deity  to  be 
adored  ? 

^  143.  (10)  There  are  individual  incidents  known  in  regard  to 
Thotmes  IV  and  his  successor,  which  point  to  him  as  the  probable 
Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus.  He  himself  patronized  particularly  the  deity 
of  the  great  sphinx;  and  he  "set  up  between  the  paws  of  the  sphinx 
a  massive  memorial  tablet  on  which  he  recorded  his  dream,  and  no 
doulit  the  happy  accomplishment  of  his  enterprises;  (sri^  Biych  Hist. 
J\^ypf,  Vol.  /,  p.  -//j);  it  was  recently  uncovered  by  Dr.  Lepsius. 
(Birch,  p.  418.)"  So  says  Rawlinson,  p.  140.  It  is  reported  that  the  in- 
scription on  this  memorial  tablet  breaks  off  abruptly,  as  if  left  for  fur- 
ther record  of  exploits  (presumably  not  obtained  by  reason  of  some  dis- 


THE   JUDGES  285 

aster  to  him);  and  that  no  naming  of  this  Pharaoh  has  yet  been  found, 
though  the  names  of  the  kings  before  and  after  him  are  recovered. 
(See  the  account  in  Dr.  Cummings'  work,  London.  Also,  in  the  pub- 
Hshed  discourse  of  Dr.  Bailey,  Ottumwa,  Iowa.) 

At  any  rate,  his  career  was  short.  "  He  reigned  only  8  or  g  years," 
says  Rawlinson;  who  remarks  (p.  140):  "  It  would  seem  that  Thotmes 
IV  was  not  f/w  eldest  so7t,  or  expectant  heir  of  his  predecessor,  since 
he  ascribes  his  accession  to  the  special  favor  of  the  deity  "  of  his 
favorite  sphinx,  "who  appeared  to  him  as  he  slept,  and  raised  his 
thoughts  to  the  hope  of  sovereignty."  {See  Briiseg/i.)  Thus  Thotmes 
IV  being  not  a  "first-born,"  was  himself  spared  in  that  great  slaughter 
^Ex.  xii:  29),  when  "  at  midnight  the  Lord  smote  all  the  first-born  in 
the  land  of  'Egypi,  from  the  first-born  of  Pharaoh  that  sat  on  his  throne, 
unto  the  first-born  of  the  captive  that  was  in  the  dungeon."  And  the 
authors  above  referred  to  think  there  is  evidence  that  the  successor, 
Amenophis  III  also  was  not  a  first-born  son.  That  he  was  young, 
and  called  unexpectedly  to  the  throne,  would  appear  from  his  taking 
for  his  prime  minister  an  older  namesake,  "Amenophis  Hapu,"  his 
second  cousin,  the  grandson  of  his  own  grandfather,  Amenophis  II, 
as  Rawlinson  shows,  (p.  140),  and  as  Manetho  testifies.  [Jos.  vs.  Ap. 
/,  26.) 

;?  144.  (11)  From  the  Exodus  to  the  beginning  of  Ehud  (Jud.  iii: 
15^  30)  were  141  years,  (see  §72);  and  these  reach  from  the  end  of 
Thotmes  IV  regarded  as  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus,  through  the  re- 
maining 113  years  of  the  i8th  dynasty  (see  §  115),  and  28  years  into  the 
19th  dynasty,  or  to  about  11  years  of  the  joint  reign  of  Rameses  II 
with  his  father,  according  to  the  cui'rent  reckoning  of  those  kings. 
This  allows  5  years  for  Rameses  I  (according  to  Manetho  in  Josephus) 
+12  for  Seti  I,  to  the  beginning  of  joint  reign  for  Rameses  II,  and  then 
the  2ist  year  of  Rameses  II,  in  which  he  concluded  .his  expeditions 
through  Palestine  by  his  final  treaty  with  the  Hittites  near  Kadesh,  of 
Lebanon,  will  carry  us  to  the  loth  year  of  Ehud's  peace  in  Israel. 
But  if  the  2ist  year  were  that  of  Rameses'  sole  reign  after  59  of  his 
father  (as  given  by  Manetho),  then  that  treaty  of  his  does  not  come 
till  the  57th  year  of  Ehud's  80  years  of  peace. 

Hence  we  may  say,  that  our  view  of  the  Exodus  brings  the  exploits 
of  Rameses  II  in  the  region  of  Lebanon,  somewhere  between  the  loth 
and  6oth  of  Ehud's  80  years.  And  this  location  for  them  in  the  midst 
of  that  long  period  of  profound  tranquility  to  Israel,  is  the  most  fitting 
place  that  could  be  found.  The  "480th  year  "  of  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  will  bring 
these  operations  of  Pharaoh  through  Canaan  to  come  about  the  time 
of  Joshua's  conquest  of  the  land;  when  it  would  be  simply  impossible 
to  occur  (with  Israel  so  up  in  arms)  without  a  renewal  of  the  Exodus  con- 
flict, and  some  mention  made  in  the  history.     But  when,  in  disarmed  re- 


286  PERIOD    D 

pose,  the  Israelites  were  long  settled  to  their  quiet  husbandry,  in  ac- 
cordance with  our  "580th  year  "  reckoning,  Egypt's  monarch  might, 
with  his  army,  pass  through,  and  even  capture  heathen  towns  on  the 
way,  without  a  ripple  of  disturbance  to  the  Hebrew  nation,  as  we  have 
shown  before.  (§  125-129) 

§  145.  Such  encroachments  on  their  enemies  would  even  be  a 
benefit  to  the  Jews;  though  they  would  scarcely  give  their  old  oppres- 
sor, Egypt,  the  credit  of  it  in  their  history.  So  long  as  the  Hittite  con- 
federacy about  Kadesh  was  thus  kept  under  by  Egypt,  so  long  they 
were  kept  from  invading  Israel.  But  when,  by  the  final  league 
secured,  they  were  made  somewhat  independent  of  Egypt,  then  it  was 
not  long  before,  at  the  death  of  Ehud,  their  leader,  "Jabin,  king  of 
Canaan,  who  reigned  in  Hazor,"near  Kadesh,  (Jud.  iv:  1-4,  10)  began 
a  20  years'  oppression  of  the  Jews.  And  the  captain  or  prime  leader 
of  Jabin's  confederacy  (v:  2,  13)  was  that  very  Si-Sar-a  (Sisera)  whose 
name  is  indicated  in  the  exploits  of  Pharaoh  a  little  before  against  this 
Hittite  confederacy!     (Sc/iiaar/s.) 

(Note.  Schwartz  (in  Essay,  Jan.,  i88g,  P.  II.,  p.  7j.),  makes  the 
invasion  of  Pharaoh  to  come  still  later,  and  to  be  a  conflict  with  Jabin 
himself,  in  connection  with  Deborah  and  Barak.  He  cites  a  general 
of  the  Hittite  monarch  antagonized  by  Pharaoh  as  being  called  "  Si- 
Sar-a."  But  Schwartz'  further  attempt  to  reconcile  these  events 
with  the  "480th  yr.,"  by  dropping  out  150  years  from  Egyptian  his- 
tory, is  opposed  to  all  the  teachings  of  Egyptologists.) 

§  146.  (12)  For  the  foregoing  and  other  reasons,  we  think  we  are 
safe  in  saying,  that  Thotmes  IV  is  a  probable  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus, 
with  Thotmes  III  as  a  probable  Pharaoh  of  the  oppression.  The 
Egyptologist  Wilkinson  put  Thotmes  III  at  the  Exodus;  so  also 
Schwartz;  but  we  (with  others)  look  with  more  favor  upon  Thotmes 
IV  as  consummating  the  oppression  and  perishing  at  the  Exodus,  in 
B.  C.  1590  [91].  Nothing  is  claimed  but  a  probability  in  this  or  any 
other  date;  and  we  deprecate  the  fashion  of  talking  dogmatically  con- 
cerning any  pagan  reckoning  in  those  days  of  such  chronological 
obscurity.  Professor  Ebers  himself  says:  "We  begin  by  admitting 
that,  among  the  narrative  works  of  Egyptian  literature,  nothing  has 
been  found  as  yet,  which  refers  indubitably  to  the  historical  event  of 
the  Hebrew  Exodus."  (S.  S.  Times,  Apl.  30,  i88y.)  We  add,  that  no 
such  discovery  is  likely  to  be  made.  Why,  then,  should  he  speak  so 
positively  of  being  sure  that  the  time  of  Meneptah  is  the  true  and  only 
possible  date? 

Miss  Edwards,  the  noted  Egyptologist,  is  much  more  modest  in  her 
utterance,  and  there  speaks  doubtingly  concerning  that  assignment. 
The  era  of  Menemptah  for  the  Exodus  is  in  violation  of  all  Scripture 
numbers.     But  the  era  of  Thotmes  IV,  as  argued  above,  is  in  exact 


THE  JUDGES  287 

accordance  with  Bible  Chronology  as  we  have  unfolded  it  in  our  pre- 
vious essay.  We  are  therefore  disposed  to  rest  in  this  Bible  Chronol- 
ogy, till  something  more  tangible  appears  to  call  it  in  question. 

Postscript.  April  15,  1893.  All  the  foregoing  was  written  years 
ago,  without  knowledge  that  the  Tel-el-Amarna  tablets  threw  any 
special  light  upon  the  subject.  But  now  come  testimonies  as  fol- 
lows: 

§  147.  Listen  to  a  good  authority:  "Major  C.  R.  Conder,  the 
famous  Palestinian  explorer  and  scholar,  has  made  a  translation  of  the 
Tel-el-Amarna  Tablets  discovered  in  1887,  at  the  site  of  the  ancient 
Arsinoe  in  Egypt.  They  date  from  about  1480  B.  C,  and  are  written 
to  the  king  of  Egypt  and  some  of  his  officials  by  Amorites,  Philistines, 
Phcenicians  and  others,  and  include  accounts  of  the  conquest  of 
Damascus  by  the  Hittites,  of  Phoenicia  by  the  Amorites,  and  of  Judea 
by  the  Hebrews.  Major  Conder  has  endeavored  to  make  an 
accurate  translation,  with  no  thought  of  supporting  any  particular 
theory  of  interpretation.  He  dissents  sharply  from  Dr.  Brugsch  and 
the  now  fashionable  theory  which  places  the  conquest  of  the  south  of 
Palestine  by  the  Hebrews  in  the  time  of  Seti  H  [or  Meneptah],  but 
claims  that  the  tablets  represent  the  conquest  as  much  earlier,  and 
as  contemporaneous  with  the  dates  named  in  the  Bible."  [^Boston 
Cong'ist,  Apl.  ij,  i8gj.) 

"  Major  Conder  contends  that  the  Exodus  had  alreadj'  occurred  (at 
the  time  of  the  Tel-el-Amarna  tablets),  and  that  the  Israelites  were 
established  in  the  mountains  of  Palestine  when  the  correspondence 
occurred,  in  1480  B.  C."  {T/ie  T/ihtker,"  June,  iSgj,  Christian  Lit.  Co.) 

"The  Tel-el-Amarna  tablets  are  composed  of  letters  written  from 
Palestine  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  by  some  of  the  very  men  named  in 
the  book  of  Joshua.  The  political  condition  of  the  land  (and  it  is 
a  most  peculiar  one)  is  the  very  condition  pictured  in  Jashua. 
The  name  of  the  country  and  the  names  of  the  adjacent  territoiTes  in 
these  letters  are  identical  with  those  in  the  Pentateuch."  ("  Truth,'" 
May,  i8g4,  p.  241,  Revell  Co.) 

I  148.  "  In  1888  at  Tel-el-Amarna,  half  way  between  Thebes  and 
Memphis,  100  miles  south  of  Cairo,  a  large  number  of  clay  tablets  were 
discovered,  first  by  a  peasant  woman,  at  the  site  of  the  palace  of 
Amenophis  IV,  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Nile.  (See  Prof.  Jastrow's 
article  in  Journal  of  Bib.  Lit.,  Vol.  xi,  1892.)  Some  of  these  tablets  are 
letters- from  Palestine,  dated  about  B.  C.  1400  to  1500,  and  five  or 
seven  are  from  Jerusalem,  which  mention  menacing  danger  from  the 
gradual  encroachment  from  the  Habiri,  which  Dr.  Zimmern  and 
others  regard  as  none  other  than  the  Ibrim  or  Hebrews;  either 
the  descendants  of  Abraham  remaining  in  Palestine,  or  (if  the  Exodus 
was  in  1491)  the    Hebrews   under  Joshua  taking  possession   of   the 


a»H  PERIOD    D 

promised   land,  as  is  far  more  probable.     These  letters  tend  to  con- 
firm the  ordinary  (Bible)  date."     {Dr.  Pelotibet,  in  the  Advance,  May  3, 

1894-) 

No!  we  remark,  not  to  confirm  the  "ordinary"  dating,  1491, 
but  certainly  to  confirm  our  revised  date,  1591.  We  have  shown  (at 
§  115)  that  the  last  year  of  Thotmes  IV  was  113  years  before  the  19th 
dynasty  of  Egypt,  or  B.  C.  1591,  and  that  Amenophis  began  31  years 
later,  in  B.  C.  1560,  not  reigning  in  "  B.  C.  1480,"  as  the  "Thinker" 
gives  it  above.  The  B.  C.  1440  to  1450,  where  Peloubet  would  put 
Amenophis  IV  is  down  in  the  19th  dynasty;  and  it  is  not  possible 
for  that  Pharaoh  to  be  got  down  to  so  low  a  date  as  this,  by  any  means, 
except  the  revolutionary  and  violent  means  of  Schwartz.  (See  I  108, 
note.)  The  40  or  more  years  by  which  the  Assyriologists  reduce 
Shishak  will  not  do  it. 

§  149.  Therefore,  since  Amenopolis  IV  reigned  from  B.  C.  1560  to 
1540,  his  reign  was  just  in  the  days  of  Joshua,  who  (by  our  "580 
years'"  reckoning)  began  in  (B.  C.  1591 — 40=)  1551  B.  C.  So  that  the 
Tel-el-Amarna  tablets  were  written  in  these  very  first  seven  years  of 
Joshua,  wherein  he  was  taking  possession  of  the  promised  land,"  /.  e., 
when  the  "580  years"  are  taken  as  the  true  Bible  reckoning.  But, 
taking  the  "480th  year"  of  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  the  tablets  were  written 
one  hundred  years  before  Joshua,  who  in  that  case  began  (B.  C.  1491 — 
40=)  1451  B.  C.  Hence  the  certainty  that  these  tablets  do  confirm  the 
Bible  date,  not  by  the  "ordinary"  method  of  Usher  with  the  480th 
year,  but  with  our  580  years'  reckoning  above. 

Now  mark  !  Here  .is  a  demonstration  from  the  inscriptions  of  B.  C. 
1 591  as  the  Exodus  date,yz/5/'  as  ive  proved  it  from  the  Scriptures  before 
knozi'ing  anything  about  this  monumental  proof?  Is  not  our  unbiased 
result  thus  completely  corroborated  ? 


> 


PERIOD  C.--THE  PATRIARCHS. 

PART  I. 

From  the  Birth  of  Abraham  to  the  Exodus. 


§  I.  We  next  examine  the  period  from  the  birth  of  Abraham  to  the 
Exodus  of  Israel  from  Egypt.  In  Ex.  xii:  40,  41,  we  read  as  follows: 
"  Now  the  sojourning  of  the  children  of  Israel,  who  dwelt  (or  sojourned) 
in  Egypt,  was  430  j-ears."  This  is  the  correct  rendering  as  given  m 
our  King  James  Bible;  and  its  statement  is,  not  that  Israel  d'H'elt  in 
Egypt  430  years,  but  that  the  whole  "sojourning  of"  God's  people 
(the  Israelitish  dwellers  of  Egypt)  lasted  430  years.  The  Jews  always 
understood  this  "sojourning"  as  covering  all  their  unsettled  state 
without  a  land  of  their  own;  particularly  the  time  from  the  promise  of 
Canaan  to  their  going  to  take  possession  of  it — that  is,  from  Abraham's 
arrival  in  Canaan  to  the  Exodus.  All  this  time  they  "  confessed  that 
thev  were  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth."  (Heb.  xi:  13;  Gen. 
xv:  13.  and  xvii:  8,  and  xxiii:  4,  and  xxviii:  4,  and  xxxvii:  i,  and  xlvii:  9.) 

g  2.  Josephus  very  distinctly  explains  the  matter.  (Ant.  2.  xv:  2), 
"  They  left  Egypt  in  the  month  Xanthicus  [Nisan],  on  the  15th  day  of 
the  lunar  month;  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  our  forefather 
Abraham  came  into  Canaan,  but  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years  only 
after  Jacob  removed  into  Egypt."  The  215  yeai's  thus  allowed  to  the 
patriarchs  before  Jacob's  going  to  Egypt,  is  found  to  be  the  exact  time 
given  by  Scripture.  Thus:  from  Abraham's  arrival  at  75  years  of  age 
to  Isaac's  bii"th,  25  years  +  Isaac  60  at  birth  of  Jacob  -\-  Jacob  130 
when  reaching  Pharaoh  =  215  in  all.  (Gen.  xii:  4,  and  xxi:  3.  and  xx\^ ' 
26,  and  xlvii:  9.)  * 

§  3,  After  the  430  years  had  advanced  about  10  years  from 
Abraham's  arrival  in  Canaan,  God  appeared  to  him  and  foretold  how 
his  numerous  seed  should  become  bondmen  in  Egypt;  with  the  definite 
statement  (Gen.  xv:  13),  "  They— that  is,  Egyptians — shall  afflict 
them  four  hundred  years."  This  400  years  affliction,  of  course,  ended 
at  the  Exodus,  along  with  the  430  years  of  sojourning.  So  that,  it 
commenced  30  years  later  than  the  sojourning^  that  is,  when  Abraham 


290  PERIOD   c 

had  been  30  years  in  Canaan.  Then  Isaac  was  5  years  old,  and  (soon 
after  being  weaned)  was  mocked  at  by  Ishmael,  whose  mother  was 
Egyptian,  (Gen.  xvi:  i,  and  xxi:  8-14);  and  this  was  looked  upon  as  the 
beginning  of  Egyptian  affliction, — first  from  Ishmaelites  (who  sold 
Joseph  into  Egypt),  and  then  from  full-blooded  Egyptians  themselves. 
Josephus  says  (Ant.  2,  ix:  i),  "four  hundred  years  did  they  spend 
under  these  afflictions;"  and  this  language,  though  obscured  b}'  its 
position  in  the  midst  of  the  bondage,  is  meant  to  cover  the  whole  period 
of  affliction  to  Abraham's  seed,  beginning  with  Isaac  at  the  mocking  by 
Ishmael. 

§  4.  Such  was  the  understanding  of  Josephus  and  of  all  Jewish 
writers,  both  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times,  as  seen  in  the  Jewish 
Calendar  and  Chronology  of  the  present  day.  And  such  is  the  reckon- 
ing given  by  the  New  Testament  authorities,  Paul  and  Stephen,  and 
by  all  the  church  fathers  down  the  ages.  No  other  view  was  ever 
taken  of  the  matter,  and  no  longer  estimate  of  the  time  spent  in  Egypt 
was  ever  dreamed  of,  so  far  as  we  can  learn;  until,  in  the  present  gen- 
eration a  few  persons  have  decided,  that  the  "430  years"  were  all  spent 
in  the  Egyptian  bondage*  and  have  tlius  increased  the  time  from 
Abraham  to  the  Exodus  by  215  years. 

'i  5.  This  new  theory  has  arisen  mostly  from  archaeological  stu- 
dents and  others,  who,  having  first  reduced  the  true  580  years  period 
between  the  Exodus  and  the  Temple  to  "the  480th  year"  of  I  Ki.  vi: 
I,  wrongfully  taken  as  genuine,  have  ended  with  rejecting  that  480th 
year  altogether,  claiming  (as  almost  all  Egyptologists  now  do)  that  the 
interval  was  only  about  350  years.  This  loss  of  over  200  3'ears  from 
Solomon's  Temple  back  to  the  Exodus,  leads  them  to  seek  in  offset  an 
addition  of  over  200  years  before  the  Exodus,  in  order  to  restore  Abra- 
ham to  about  his  right  place  (near  2000  B.  C),  where  Egyptology 
itself  requires  him  to  be. 

'i  6.  But  this  pushing  down  of  the  Exodus  to  a  215-year  later  date, 
by  putting  the  Scripture  "430  years"  as  all  spent  in  the  Egyptian 
bondage,  can  not  be  sustained  as  true  Scripture  chronology.  It  is  true, 
the  Bible  revisers  have  unfortunately  encouraged  this  new  theory,  by 
adopting  the  Septuagint  method  of  translating  this  Ex.  xii:  40,  thus: 
"  Now  the  sojourning  of  the  children  of  Israel  which  they  sojourned 
in  Egypt,  was  430  years,"  in  place  of  our  King  James'  rendering, 
"Now  the  sojourning  of  the  children  of  Israel,  who  sojourned  in 
Egypt,  was  430  years."  But,  when  the  Lxx  mistakingly  so  translated, 
knowing  that  this  rendering  gave  a  false  impression  of  the  whole  time 
as  if  spent  in  Egypt,  they  felt  necessitated  to  append  "  in  Egypt  and 
Canaan  "  to  save  the  truth  of  the  passage.       And  the  Samaritan  text 

*  So  the  Bib.  Sacra.,  April,  iSgo,  p.  291. 


THE    PATRIARCHS  291 

has  the  same,  only  with  inverted  order,  "/;/  Canaan  and  Egypt." 
Scott  says  of  this  gloss,  "  this  is  merely  a rw//;;/£V//,  though  a  just  one." 
And  this  comment  of  both  those  earliest  versions  proves  conclusively 
that  such  a  gloss  is  necessary,  whenever  the  text  is  so  rendn'cd.  But 
unfortunately  the  revisers  have  so  rendered  without  putting  in  the 
required  comment  of  the  Lxx  and  Sam.  to  prevent  mistake.  It  is 
plain,  that  our  King  James'  rendering  is  the  true  reading  when  without 
comment  inserted;  and  that  there  is  really  no  encouragement  in  the 
passage  for  the  modern  notion,  that  all  the  430  years  were  spent  in 
Egypt.  This  is  forbidden  not  only  by  all  Jewish  and  Christian  author- 
ities, as  before  said,  but  especially  by  the  inspired  authorities  of  the 
New  Testament. 

i^  7.  Paul's  lauguage  (in  Gal.  iii:  16,  17)  is  this:  "  Now  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made.  *  *  *  And  this  I  say, 
a  covenant  [of  promise]  confirmed  beforehand  by  God,  the  law,  which 
came  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  doth  not  disannul,  so  as  to 
make  the  promise  of  none  effect. "  This  is  perfectly  decisive  testimony, 
that  the  430  years  extend  from  "  Abraham"  to  the  giving  of  the  law 
immediately  after  the  Exodus.  But  the  new  theorists  try  to  make  the 
here -given  "430  years  rt//t'r"  to  mean  "after  Jacob,"  not  afte)-  tlie 
coi'diant  of  promise  to  Abraham,  as  it  reads.  This  is  preposterous. 
The  apostle  argues  that  a  covenant-promise  so  long  standing  fully 
ratified,  could  not  be  nullified  by  a  law  coming  so  long  afterward.  Of 
course,  he  takes  the  earliest  establishing  of  the  covenant-promise,  in 
order  to  express  as  long  a  time  as  he  can;  not  the  "400  years,"  but  the 
full  "430  years"  back  to  Abraham's  coming  to  Canaan,  when  the 
covenant-promise  was  first  established. 

i;  S.  How  unreasonable  to  suppose  him  pushing  down  his  reckon- 
ing over  200  years  less,  at  Jacob's  coming  to  Egypt,  when  no  such 
covenant-pi'omise  was  inaugurated  !  If  he  could  have  said  "over  600 
j'ears  after"  (as  this  new  theory  makes  it),  would  he  have  limited  it  to 
just  "430  years"?  The  apostle  speaks  distinctly  of  the  Abrahamic 
promise  as  the  _^'-t>5'/i?/ promise,  "in  Thee  and  Thy  seed  sJiall  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  be  blessed;''  which  was  given  to  Abraham  at  his 
first  coming  to  Canaan  (Gen.  xii:  3),  and  we  have  no  account  even  of  the 
repetition  of  ihsii  gospel  iovm  of  promise  at  Jacob's  coming  to  Egypt, 
(xlvi:  3.)  How  unfit  a  dating  place  for  it  was  this  latter  event, 
especially  in  the  use  which  Paul  was  making  of  the  date.  It  is  plain 
as  anything  can  be,  that  Paul  thought  ihe  "  430  years  "  was  the  age- 
length  of  the  promise,  dating  from  Abraham's  coming  to  the  giving  of 
the  law;  whether  he  was  correct  in  that  thought  or  not.  And  it  is  not 
for  us  to  deny  the  inspired  accuracy  of  the  apostle's  statement. 

?;  g.  So,  also,  Stephen  (in  Ac.  vii:  (i)  rehearses  Gen.  xv:  13,  giving 
tlie   ••400  years,"  not  as  all  years  of  the   "bondage,"  but  as   the  time 


292  PERIOD    c 

of  affliction  wherein  the  alien  nationahty  should  "entreat  them  evil."' 
Put  the  New  Testament  statements  with  those  of  Josephus  and  all  other 
authorities,  as  well  as  the  tenor  of  the  Hebrew  Scripture  itself ,  and  we 
find  no  warrant  for  the  new  theory  of  430  years  in  Egypt.  For,  one 
token  of  Scripture  is,  the  divine  statement  at  Gen.  xiii:  16,  that"  in  the 
fourth  generation  they  shall  come  hither  again,  "-^that  is,  the  bondage 
shall  continue  only  into  the  4th  generation.  Now,  in  our  essay  on 
"The  Generations  of  Matthew  i,"  (see  our  treatise  on  "The  Chro- 
nology of  the  Judges,  Period  D,  §  6),  we  have  shown  that  a  "  genera- 
tion "  then  meant  simply  70  years,  the  appointed  age  of  man  (Psa. 
xc:  10).  So  that,  "  in  the  4th  generation"  meant  "in  the  4th  70,"' 
/.  <•.,  after  (3X7o)=2io,  or  in  215  years. 

§  10.  With  this  agrees  ,the  fact,  that  the  four  generations  are 
expressly  assigned  by  the  sacred  writers,  with  four  names  of  father, 
son,  grandson,  and  great-grandson,  as  in  certain  cases  covering  the 
time  of  the  bondage,  215  years.  (See  Matt.  1:3.)  This  could  not  be  if 
the  bondage  were  430  years;  as  is  well  shown  in  the  Bib.  Sacra  (April, 
1890,  page  291).  "The  names,  which  are  found  without  deviation  in 
all  the  genealogies  are — from  Jacob — Levi,  Kohath,  Amram,  Moses. 
(Ex.  vi:  16-20;  Num.  iii:  17-19,  and  xxvi:  57-59;  I  Ghron.  vi:  1-3,  16,  18, 
and  xxiii:  6,  12,  13.)  Now  unquestionably  Levi  was  Jacob's  own  son. 
So,  likewise,  Kohath  was  the  son  of  Levi,  and  born  before  the  descent 
into  Egypt  (Gen.  xlvi:  11).  Amram  also  was  the  immediate  descendant 
of  Kohath.  It  does  not  seem  possible,  as  Kurtz  proposes,  to  insert 
missing  links  between  them."  All  this  is  well  said  by  Prof.  Green  in 
the  Bib.  Sacra. 

§  II.  And  we  add,  it  is  scaxxely  believable  that  any  "  missing  link  " 
can  be  inserted  between  Amram  and  Moses,  as  Prof.  Green  there  tries 
to  do.  The  record  is  this:  Ex.  vi:  20,  "And  Amram  took  him  Joch- 
ebed  his  father's  sister  to  wife,  and  she  bare  him  Aaron  and  Moses." 
Num.  xxvi:  59,  "And  the  name  of  Amram's  wife  was  Jochebed,  the 
daughter  of  Levi,  whom  her  mother  bare  to  Levi  in  Egypt:  and  she 
bare  unto  Amram,  Aaron  and  Moses,  and  Miriam,  their  sister." 
I  Chron.  vi:  3,  "The  children  of  Amram,  Aaron  and  Moses  and 
Miriam."  Ch.  xxiii:  13,  "The  sons  of  Amram,  Aaron  and  Moses." 
Lev.  xr  4,  calls  Amram's  brother  "  Uzziel  the  uncle  of  Aaron,"  which 
also  makes  Amram  the  father  of  Aaron.  Language  could  not  express 
more  explicitly  than  do  all  these  passages,  that  the  father  of  Aaron  and 
Moses  was  Amram. 

§  12.  And  the  ages  of  the  successive  parents  show  the  same.  At 
Ex.  vi:  16-20,  we  are  told  the  ages,  thus;  Levi  lived  137  years,  his  son 
Kohath,  133,  his  son  Amram,  137,  his  son  Moses  at  the  Exodus  was  80 
vears  old.  We  will  say,  that  65  years  after  the  descent  into  Egypt 
Kohath  begat  Amram,  and  70  years  afterward  Amram  begat  Moses; 


THE    PATRIARCHS  293 

then  we  have  in  Egypt,  Kohath  65  years  -\-  Amrani  70  years  +  Moses 
80  years  =  215  years  in  all  to  the  Exodus."  Here  we  have  very  simply 
"  the  4th  generation  "  of  God's  promise  (from  Levi,  the  first  to  enter 
Egypt),  with  three  generations  or  average  70' s  of  lifetime  between 
them.  And  does  it  not  look  plain  and  rational,  that  in  the  215  year's  of 
stay,  with  successive  parents  living  so  long  as  these,  this  actual  case 
occurred,  of  only  four  generations  in  succession  ? 

The  four  successive  lives  in  this  case  covering  the  whole  time, 
would  not  prevent  a  greater  number  of  lives  in  most  cases  occupying 
the  time;  even  ^en  successive  lives,  of  21  years  each  at  the  birth  of  a 
son,  might  occur  in  the  215  years  of  bondage,  as  in  the  genealogy  of 
Joshua.  (I  Chron.  vii:  23-27.  Prof.  Green  here  wrongly  reads  t'/t^7'en 
generations.) 

?J  13.  There  are  four  difficulties  in  explaining  Amram  as  ;!o/  the 
father  of  Aaron  and  Moses:  (i)  We  are  told  in  two  different  books, 
that  "  Jochebed  bai^e  unto  Amram,  Aaron  and  Moses."  (2)  In  two 
places  we  read,  "  the  children  of  Amram,  Aaron  and  Moses."  (3)  We 
are  expressly  told  that  Amram 's  brother  was  "the,  uncle  of  Aaron." 
(4)  If  at  Ex.  vi:  20,  we  make  Aaron  and  Moses  only  remote  dcscrudaiifs 
of  Amram,  we  shall  have  to -change  ver.  21  and  22  in  the  same  way, 
making  "the  sons  of  Izhar  "  and  "  the  sons  of  Uzziel  "  to  be  only  their 
remote  descendants;  which  is  supposing  a  very  complex  and  unlikely 
combination  of  unusual  terms  here  heaped  up.  Now  any  one  of  these 
variations  of  meaning  may  sometimes  be  found  in  Scripture,  as  Prof. 
Green  has  well  shown.  But  the  combination  of  all  of  them  in  such 
profuse  unnaturalness  upon  all  the  varied  mentions  of  this  one  case, 
is  altogether  beyond  belief.  It  would  never  have  been  di^eamed  of, 
but  for  the  desperate  effort  to  make  out  430  years  of  Egyptian  bondage, 
by  enough  "missing  links"  imagined  in  the  genealogy  to  make  that 
possible. 

^  14.  Prof.  Green  mentions  one  objection  against  the  shorter 
bondage  of  only  215  years;  namely,  that  in  Num.  iv:  36,  the  census  of 
the  adult  male  Kohathites  gave  "  2750"  of  them  at  the  Exodus, — and 
one  man  (Kohath)  could  not  have  originated  this  number,  if  he  wei^e 
only  the  grand-father  of  Moses, — and  Amram,  one  of  the  four -sons  of 
Kohath  (iii:  27),  "  could  not  have  originated  one-fourth  of  this  number 
(or  687)  in  Moses'  own  days,"  if  Moses  wei^e  his  son.  So  sa}'S  Prof. 
Green.  But  look  at  the  figures  already  given.  With  Amram  70  years 
old  when  his  son  Moses  was  born,  we  have  (70-|-8o=)  150  j'ears  from 

*  The  Jewish  historian  Demetrius  (B.  C.  220)  puts  the  birth  of  Amram 
57  years  after  the  descent  into  Egypt,  and  the  birth  of  Moses  78  years 
afterward;  so  that  he  has  57+78+80=215  years.  {See  Chron.  Antiq.  of 
Jackson,  page  iig.) 


294  PERIOD   c 

Amram's  birth  to  the  Exodus.  At  the  age  of  30  each  father  might 
have  5  SO/IS  (and  as  many  daughters);  so  that  in  (4  times  30 or)  120 years 
there  might  easily  Tae  5x5 x  5x5=  625  males;  and  in  30  years  more 
(making  up  the  150  years  to  the  Exodus),  there  might  be  625  male 
adults,  the  youngest  of  them  30  years  old.  An  average  of  5  2-10  sons 
each  will  give  731  at  the  end;  which  is  more  than  the  687  required. 

4^15.  Again:  If  each  father  at  the  age  of  37  years  had  5  sons,  then  in 
(5  times  37  or)  185  years  there  might  easily  be  5X5X 5 x 5x5  =  3125 
males)  and  in  30  years  more  (making  up  the  215  years  of  bondage), 
there  might  be  3125  male  adults,  the  youngest  of  them  30  years  old; 
and  all  coming  from  one  man  (Kohath)  beginning  at  the  descent  into 
Egypt, — whereas  only  "  2750"  are  i^equired  by  Scripture. 

Once  more:  If  each  father  at  the  age  of  32^4  had  5  sons,  then  in 
(6  times  32^^  or)  195  years  there  might  easily  be  5x5x5x5x5x5 
=  15,625  males;  and  in  20  years  more  (making  up  the  215  years  of 
bondage),  there  might  be  15,625  male  adults,  the  youngest  of  them  20 
years  old;  and  all  coming  from  one  man  at  the  descent  into  Egypt. 
So  that,  if  there  were  only  40  males  to  begin  with,  (and  there  were 
more  than  that,  see  Gen.  xlv-i:  8-27),  there  might  easily  be  at  the  Exo- 
dus (15,625X40==)  625,000  male  adults  over  20  years  of  age.  Whereas, 
only  "  603,500"  are  required  by  Scripture.  (Num.  i:  46.) 

g  16.  Such  is  the  rational  census  of  that  prolific  people  under  the 
helping  hand  of  God.  (See  Ex.  i:  19,  20.)  This  completely  removes, 
not  only  Prof.  Green's  objection  in  the  case  of  the  Kohathites,  but  also 
the  popular  objection  often  urged  against  the  bondage  of  only  215 
years, — that  this  was  too  short  a  time  to  produce  such  a  population. 
Thus  have  we  fairly  set  aside  the  only  objections  ever  suggested  against 
the  215  years  reckoning  of  the  Egyptian  bondage;  and  the  "430  years" 
of  "sojourning"  arc  thus  left  covering  the  whole  interval  from  Abra- 
ham's arrival  in  Canaan  to  the  Exodus  out  of  Egypt, — just  as  St.  Paul, 
and  Josephus,  and  all  other  authorities  taught  it  from  the  fii"st.  This 
makes  the  whole  period  (75+430=)  505  years  from  the  l>irf//  of  Abra- 
ham to  the  Exodus;  as  given  by  all  ancient  authorities. 

i^  17.  We  found  the  Bible  date  of  the  Exodus  to  be  B.  C.  1591; 
which  Josephus  has  12  years  too  large,  or  B.  C.  1603,  on  account  of 
his  592  yeai-s  after  the  Exodus  instead  of  the  right  580  years.  Thus 
we  have  the  scriptural  date  for  the  birth  of  Abraham  as  B.  C.  (1591-!- 
505=)  2096  B.  C;  which  Josephus  increases  12  years  to  B.  C.  2108  [7 
in  the  Antiq.])  -j-his  post-exilian  error  of  57  years. 

Thus  far  back  the  chroaology  of  human  history  is  pretty  well  as- 
sured:    Abraham  born  B.  C.  2096  (by  Usher,  1996). 

>J  18.  For  a  study  of  Jacob's  stay  in  Haran  (as  40  not  20  years),  see 
Period  D,  Appendix  C,  ^  96-99. 


THE    PATRIARCHS  295 

PART    II. 

When  Was  Joseph  Sold  ? 

A  Critical  Study  of  Genesis  xxxvii. 


\Reprint  frotn  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  July,   1887.} 

'i  19.  Without  troubling  ourselves  concerning  the  "higher  criti- 
cism "  of  Genesis,  we  all  have  long  acknowledged  that  its  events  are 
not  in  all  cases  recorded  in  exact  chronological  order.  Gen.  xxxvii:  2, 
14.  "Joseph  being  17  years  old,"  Jacob  "sent  him  out  of  the  vale  of 
Hebron,  and  he  came  to  Shechem."  I  judge  that  this  account  of 
Joseph  belongs  directly  after  xxxiii:  18,  with  only  xxxv:  1-5,  (9-15),  27 
between.  The  writer  at  xxxiii:  18,  having  mentioned  "  Shechem," 
thinks  best  to  go  on  and  tell  a//  about  the  residence  there  at  a  later 
date,  leaving  the  account  of  Joseph's  departure  to  come  near  to  the 
whole  story  of  his  life,  as  a  closing  up  of  the  book. 

Order  of  Events. 

^  20.  The  real  order  of  events  seems  to  be  this:  Jacob  found  the 
vicinity  of  Shechem  to  be  a  good  country  for  his  flocks;  and,  therefore, 
either  at  first  or  afterward,  "bought  a  parcel  of  a  field  where  he  had 
spread  his  tent  "  (xxxiii:  19)  for  a  residence  there.  But  he  now  tarried 
not  long,  for  he  must  reach  his  father  Isaac,  whom  he  had  not  seen 
for  so  long.  So  he  passed  on  to  Bethel  (xxxv:  1-5),  where  God  ap- 
peared to  him  again  ^f-15),  and  he  soon  reached  his  father  at  Hebron 
AXX'/.(27).  Isaac  seems  to  have  moved  thither  from  Beer-sheba,  further 
south,  where  Jacob  left  him  in  going  to  Haran  (xxviii:  10). 

Here  Jacob  resided  near  his  father  for  some  years,  but  sent  his 
flocks  back  (more  or  less)  to  the  better  pasturage  about  Shechem; 
where,  in  charge  of  his  sons,  a  part  of  the  flocks  may  have  lingered 
even  from  the  first.  When  Jacob  had  been  from  Haran  10  or  12  years, 
the  departure  of  Joseph  to  Shechem  from  "the  vale  of  Hebron"  took 
place,  as  in  chapter  xxxvii. 

Soon  after  the  loss  of  his  son,  Jacob  himself  seems  to  have  moved 
to  Shechem,  where  he  had  already  bought  a  home  (as  we  saw)  in 
order  to  be  nearer  the  flocks,  and  nearer  his  sons  who  were  getting 
settled  in  life;  perhaps,  also,  with  a  secret  hope  of  yet  finding  Joseph, 
who  had  been  so  mysteriously  lost  in  the  wilds  near  Shechem,  (xxxiii: 
18-20.) 

But  the  troul)le  that  there  occurred  about  his  daugliter  Dinah  (ch. 


296  PERIOD   c 

xxxiv)  obliged  him  to  leave  the  country  (ver.  30);  and  he  again  moved 
southward,  and  came  to  Luz  or  Bethel  once  more  (xxxv:  6,  7).  Here 
"  Deborah,  Rebekah's  nurse,  died,"  (v.  8);  which  shows  that  she  was 
now  living  with  Jacob,  having  been  taken  by  him  from  Hebron,  when 
he  moved  north  to  Shechem,  his  mother  Rebekah  being  then  dead. 

§  21.  Passing  on  still  further  southward,  Jacob  came  to  Bethle- 
hem, where  Benjamin  was  born,  and  his  mother  Rachel  died  (v.  16-20); 
then,  after  a  stay  "beyond  the  tower  of  Edar,"  (v.  21-26)  he  again 
reached  Hebron  (v.  27),  about  20  years  after  leaving  Haran;  where 
about  5  years  afterward  his  father  Isaac  died.  (v.  28,  29.)  For, 
Isaac's  age  being  180,  Jacob,  who  was  born  when  he  was  60, .must  now 
be  120  years  old,  which  makes  Isaac's  death  to  be  10  years  before 
Jacob  went  to  Egypt  (xlvii:  g),  /.  e.,  at  the  very  time  when  Joseph 
stood  before  Pharaoh  at  30  years  of  age  (xli:  46),  having  been  in 
Egypt  13  years.  During  those  13  years  since  Joseph  was  lost  at 
Shechem,  the  events  we  have  been  reciting  (from  xxxiii:  19,  to  xxxv: 
29),  must  evidently  for  the  most  part  have  taken  place. 

The  funeral  of  Isaac  bi'ought  together  Jacob  and  Esau  (xxxv:  29); 
and  this  leads  the  writer  to  go  on  and  give  the  genealogy  of  Esau's 
descendants  (Ch.  xxxvi).  But,  having  Jacob  now  back  at  Hebron,  with 
most  of  the  history  disposed  of  except  what  relates  to  Joseph,  the 
writer  now  feels  ready  to  go  back  to  Jacob's  earlier  residence  here, 
when  he  sent  off  Joseph  from  Hebron  to  Shechem;  beginning  (here  at 
Ch.  xxxvii)  that  wonderful  story  of  Joseph's  life,  which  forms  the  finish 
and  the  crown  of  the  book  of  Genesis.  But,  since  quite  a  gap  of  time 
intervenes' between  the  loss  of  Joseph  in  Shechem  and  the  discovei-y  of 
him  in  Egypt,  the  wxiter  artistically  allows  one  chapter  (the  xxxviii)  to 
come  in  and  fill  the  gap,  with  the  story  of  Judah,  which  began  about 
the  time  Joseph  disappeared.  This  single  episode  does  not  unduly 
interrupt  the  history  of  Joseph,  or  draw  attention  from  it;  therefore  it 
is  left  here  in  its  order,  although  other  intervening  events  have  been 
disposed  of  first  (in  ch.  34-36).  so  as  to  be  out  of  the  w&y  of  Joseph's  con- 
tinuous biography. 

Argument  for  This  Order. 

§  22.  Jacob  upon  coming  from  Haran,  must  have  soon  reached  his 
father  at  Hebron.     For, 

(i)  Nature  calls  for  such  a  meeting  of  the  family,  which  was  indeed 
the  very  object  of  the  journey  (xxxi:  3,  13,  18,  30),  "for  to  go  to  Isaac 
his  father;"  as  Laban  said  to  Jacob  (30),  "thou  would'st  needs  be 
gone,  because  thou  sore  longedst  after  thy  father's  house."  Says 
Scott:  "  It  should  not  be  concluded  from  the  silence  of  Scripture,  that 
Jacob  had  not  before  this  (xxxv:  27)  visited  his  father;"  which  onfy 
recorded  visit  is,  in  the  order  of  narration,  at  least  twelve  years  (prob- 
ably 20)  after  the  arrival  in  Canaan. 


THE    PATRIARCHS  297 

(2)  The  fulfillment  of  Jacob's  vow  (xxviii:  22),  as  recorded  at  xx.xv: 
1-7,    14,  15,    must   have   been   soon   after  his  return  to  Canaan,  on  a 

Jirst  trip  through  Bethel  to  his  father  at  Hebron;  not  ten  (or  twenty) 
years  after,  when  the  affairs  at  Ch.  xxxiv  had  occurred.  Especially  is 
this  plain  from  the  statement  (at  xxxv:  9,  10),  that  this  was  '^  when  he 
came  out  of  Padan-aram,"  with  reaffirmation  of  the  change  of  name 
which  had  occurred  just  before  (xxxii:  28).     Particularly, 

(3)  The  fact  of  Deborah's  death,  with  Jacob  at  Bethel,  (xxxv:  8), 
shows  conclusively,  that  Jacob  had  already  been  with  his  father  at 
Hebron,  and  had  brought  her  thence  away  with  him,  probably  on 
account  of  his  mother  Rebekah's  death.  Deborah  naturallj^  clung  to 
the  mother-boy  Jacob,  whom  she  had  nursed  in  infancy,  and  whose 
wife  Rachel  needed  her  company. 

§  23.  As  therefore  Jacob  must  have  come  and  made  some  stay  at 
Hebron  before  the  recorded  events  of  Ch.  xxxiv,  it  was  doubtless  during 
that  earlier  residence  there  that  Joseph  was  lost.     For, 

1.  There  is  a  gap  of  many  years  time  at  the  close  of  Ch.  xxxiii,  con- 
cerning which  nothing  is  said.  All  expositors  are  agreed,  that  there 
were  at  least  8  or  10  years  from  the  arrival  in  Canaan  to  the  opening  of 
the  chapter  xxiv.  Into  this  interval  naturally  falls  the  account  of 
Joseph  in  the~  chapter  xxvii.  By  this  view  is  saved  that  forced  crowd- 
ing of  events  aftei'ward,  which  results  from  retaining  Ch.  xxxvii  in  the 
order  recorded;  whereby  all  chapters,  xxxiv-xxxvii,  ax'e  pressed  into  a 
space  of  one  or  two  years,  after  that  long  gap  unaccounted  for. 

2.  At  the  return  to  Hebron  in  the  order  of  the  record,  the  date  is 
altogether  too  late  for  Joseph  to  be  then  only  17  years  old,  as  stated, 
(xxxvii:  2.)  In  Ch.  xxxiv,  Dinah  must  have  been  at  least  15  years  old, 
probably  more;  and  Joseph  being  probably  older  than  she  (as  Scott 
observes),  was  at  least  16.  •  From  that  time,  through  chapter  xxxiv  and 
xxxv,  (and  we  say  into  a  second  period  of  residence  in  Hebron),  after 
Jacob's  sons  had  been  some  time  back  in  Shechem  with  their  flocks, 
must  be  some  years  ;  (Scott,  by  the  closest  reckoning,  tries  to  reduce  it 
to  two  years)  ;  so  that  then  Joseph  must  be  at  least  18  or  19  years, 
probably  much  more. 

3.  It  seems  from  xxxvii:  29,  30,  that  Reuben  yet  felt  his  birth-right 
responsibility  ;  which  therefore  he  had  not  yet  lost  ;  as  he  afterward 
did.  (xxxv:  22,  comp.  xlix:  4,  5,  10,  with  I  Chron.  v:  i,  2.)  This  goes  to 
show,  that  much  of  chapters  xxxiv  to  xxxvii  belongs  chronologicallj' 
after  chapter  xxxvii.     But  chiefly, 

4.  The  loss  of  Joseph  near  Shechem,  when  he  was  17  years  old,  as 
recorded  in  Ch.  xxxvii,  must  have  occurred  before  the  story  of  Dinah, 
recorded  in  Ch.  xxxiv.  For,  the  terrible  slaughter  by  Jacob's  sons  of 
Shechem  and  his  father  and  the  male  inhabitants  of  the  town,  with  the 
plunder  of  all  their  wealth  (v.  25-29),  could  not  be  before  those  sons, 
Simeon  and  Levi,  who  accomplished  it,  were  at  least  21  years  old  ; — 


298  PERIOD   c 

which  would  make  Joseph  as  much  as  17  already.  Probably  they  were 
all  much  older  than  that,  and  Dinah  much  older  than  15  ;  Joseph  hav- 
ing been  sold  before  this  second  residence  at  Shechem.  This  slaughter 
and  havoc  there  by  his  sons,  so  disgusted  Jacob  as  well  as  the  people 
thereabouts  (xxxiv:  30),  that  Jacob  left  the  country  (as  at  xxxv:  6-8), 
proceeding  by  way  of  Bethel  back  to  Hebron  (v.  16-27). 

§  24.  Now  it  was  not  possible,  that  on  this  return  to  Hebron,  he 
could  immediately  send  back  these  very  murderous  sons  with  the  flocks 
to  feed  about  Shechem,  the  very  scene  of  their  recent  butchery.  And 
especially,  he  could  not  {immediately,  as  the  recorded  order  would 
require),  send  off  his  young  beloved  Joseph,  to  hunt  them  up  in  that 
country  so  aroused  against  them.  Plainly,  this  feeding  of  flocks,  this 
visit  of  Joseph,  was  in  the  early  days  after  aiTival  at  Shechem;  when 
we  are  expressly  told  that  "Jacob  came  in  peace  to  the  city  of  Shechem,''' 
(xxxiii:  18,  Revision);  in  evident  contrast  with  the  warlike  catastrophe 
that  afterward  drove  and  kept  him  and  his  family  away  from  that 
region. 

This  proves  beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  story  of  Joseph's  departure 
(in  Ch.  xxxvii)  belongs  back,  before  the  story  about  Dinah  (in  Ch.  xxxiv); 
and  that  there  (probably  at  xxxiii:  19)  comes  in  the  visit  of  Jacob  to  his 
father  Isaac  (xxxv:  27),  during  v^hich.  first  stop  at  Hebron,  Joseph  was 
sent  back  to  his  brethren  at  Shechem,  as  the  history  proceeds  to  nar- 
rate (in  Ch.  xxxvii). 

The  reason  of  this  inverted  order  in  the  narrative,  I  have  sufficiently 
shown;  it  being  a  skilfully  artistic  arrangement,  by  which,  when  Shec- 
hem is  once  named,  the  subsequent  events  there  disconnected  with 
Joseph  are  related.  The  same  plan  being  again  followed  when  Bethel 
is  once  named,  and  when  Hebron  is  once  named  and  Esau  ;  all  inter- 
ruptive  affairs  are  thus  disposed  of  beforehand,  so  that  the  story  of 
Joseph,  when  once  begun,  can  go  on  without  any  disturbing  intermix- 
ture. 

5.  A  fifth  proof  should  be  named.  The  death  of  Isaac,  and  the 
consequent  discourse  about  Esau,  (xxxv:  28  to  xxxvi:  43),  is  certainly 
put  out  of  its  chronological  order,  by  an  anticipation  of  some  years, 
as  all  expositors  observe.  And  this  evidently  is  done  for  the  very  ob- 
ject we  have  explained,  that  Hebron  being  once  named  (xxxv:  27), 
everything  there  may  be  so  disposed  of,  as  not  to  interrupt  the  story 
of  Joseph  when  begun.  All  I  do  is,  to  extend  this  acknowledged  antic- 
ipation back  still  farther  to  chapter  33. 

6.  If  Gen.  xlviii:  22,  refers  to  the  same  land  as  xxxiii:  11  (as  gen- 
erally thought),  then  Jacob  must  have  come  back  to  live  there  a  sec- 
ond time,  recapturing  the  land,  say,  after  the  loss  of  Joseph, — just  as 
here  argued.  "The  Amorite  "  may  mean  in  general  the  "Canaan- 
ites,"  including  Shechemites,  as  at  Gen.  xv:  16. 


THE    PATRIARCHS  299 


Results. 


§  25.  The  principal  result  of  this  view  is,  that  the  birth  of  Ben- 
jamin (and  the  death  of  his  mother  Rachel)  is  thus  brought  after  the 
sale  of  Joseph  into  Egypt;  showing  several  things: 

1.  Why  Joseph  "was  the  son  of  his  old-age  "  to  Jacob,  (xxxvii:  3); 
which  he  could  hardly  be  called,  if  the  younger  Benjamin  were  already 
born.     (See  xliv:  20.) 

2.  Why  "Israel  loved  Joseph  more  than  all  his  brethren"  (xxx\ii: 
3),  notwithstanding  xxxv:  18,  which  must  be  afti'fii'anL  "  His  father 
called  him  (the  last  son)  Benjamin,"  /.  c.,  "son  of  the  right-hand," 
jnarg.,  meaning  "particularly  dear  and  precious, — as  some  think,  orig- 
inally Benjaw/w,  i.  i\,  "a  son  of  days,"  or  of  old-age. — JaDiieson. 
When  Joseph  was  so  singled  out,  it  was  as  being  the  only  son  (as  yet) 
of  Jacob's  beloved  Rachel.  Such  specializing  would  hardly  have 
been,  if  the  infant  Benjamin  were  already  present. 

3.  Why  Jacob  said  (v.  10),  "Shall  I  and  thy  mother  and  thj' 
brethren  indeed  come  to  bow  down  ourselves  to  thee  ?"  He  could 
not  have  thus  spoken  to  Joseph  of  his  oiim  "mother,"  if  she  were 
already  dead.  Joseph's  dream  had  in  it  eleven  stars  to  make  obei- 
sance to  him  (v.  9),  as  meaning  the  eleven  children  (including  Dinah, 
who  was  numbered  with  the  heads  of  families,  xlvi:  15);  or  else,  as 
prophetic  that  there  was  to  be  "another  son."     (See  xxx:  24.) 

4.  Why  we  are  told  of  "  Rachel  weeping  for  her  children;  she  re- 
fused to  be  comforted  for  her  children,  because  they  are  not,"  (Jer. 
xxxi:  15;  Mat.  ii:  18).  The  living  Rachel  herself,  it  seems,  literally  be- 
gan this  weeping  over  her  lost  Joseph;  (comp.  Gen.  xxxv:  18,  niarg., 
"  son  of  my  sorrow  "  over  Joseph.)  She  only  mourned  as  her  husband 
Jacob  did,  who  also  "  refused  to  be  comforted"  (xxxvii:  34,  35),  saj'- 
ing,  "Joseph  is  not,"  (xlii:  36); — to  Rachel  "Joseph  was  not  ""  till 
she  died  uttering  those  woi^ds. 

5.  Why  Benjamin  is  called  so  young-,  as  being  a  mere  "lad" 
when  he  was  taken  to  Eg}'pt;  (xliii:  8,  29,  and  xliv:  20,  22,  31,  2,2,  33, 
34),  "  a  child  of  his  old  age,  a  little  one,'' — just  as  Joseph  at  17  years 
is  called  "  a  lad  "  (xxxvii:  2).  It  is  probable  that  Benjamin  was  not 
older  than  17  also;  instead  of  being  about  25,  as  the  current  view 
makes  him,  when  he  was  thus  called  "a  lad  —  a  child,  a  little 
one.'" 

(Note.  The  "inductive  studies"  of  the  Institute  of  Sacred 
Lit.  in  the  S.  S.  Times,  April  7,  1894,  even  says:  "  Benjamin  was 
at  least  30  years  old"  on  meeting  Joseph!) 

6.  Why  Joseph  was  so  moved  at  mention  of  Benjamin  when  (says 
Judah,  xliii:  7),  "  He  asked  straightly  concerning  ourselves,  and  con- 
cerning our  kindred,  saying,   'Is  your  father  yet  alive,  ?  have  ye  any 


300  PERIOD    C 

other  brother  ? '  (comp.  xxx:  "24),  and  we  told  him,"  —  doubtless  men- 
tioning that  the  mother  died  when  the  boy  was  born.  How  Joseph 
schemed  to  get  a  sight  of  the  lad,  his  only  own  brother,  never  yet  seen, 
now  the  sole  memento  left  him  of  his  long-desired  mother  ! 

How  he  sought  assurance,  that  it  was  indeed  his  own  mother's 
boy  !  (xliii:  29,  30.)  "  And  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  and  saw  his  brother 
Benjamin,  his  mother's  son,  and  said,  IS  this  your  younger  brother, 
of  whom  ye  spake  unto  me?  And  he  said,  God  be  gracious  unto  thee, 
my  son.  And  Joseph  made  haste,  for  his  bowels  did  yearn  upon  his 
brother;  and  he  sought  where  to  weep,  and  he  entered  into  his  cham- 
bei;,  and  wept  there."  At  length  (xlv:  14),  '!  he  fell  upon  his  brother 
Benjamin's  neck  and  wept  !  " 

In  view  of  all  considerations,  is  not  the  arrangement  here  given 
worthy  of  thoughtful  examination  ? 


PERIOD  A,  B-DILUVIANCHRONOLOGY 


PART   I. 


The  Differing  Texts. 

§  I.  Diluvian  Chronology  has  two  periods,  {A)  antediluvian,  and 
[B)  postdiluvian  (reaching  to  the  birth  of  Abraham),  as  recorded  in 
Genesis  v  and  xi.  We  have  three  differing  texts  of  these  tables  of 
chronology,  the  Hebrew  of  our  English  Bible,  the  Samaritan  penta- 
teuch,  and  the  Septuagint  or  Greek  version  made  250  B.  C.  Josephus 
professes  to  give  the  old  Hebrew  as  he  had  it;  but  it  may  be  claimed, 
that  as  his  numbers  are  about  the  same  as  those  of  the  Septuagint, 
they  are  only  copied  therefrom.  We  take  them  as  at  least  fairly  rep- 
i-esenting  the  Septuagint.     The  three  texts  compared  give  us  as  follows : 

§  2.     The  Three  Texts. 

A  Period.       B  Total. 

Present  Hebi'ew i6s6  +     202+       r  =  IQ4.8 

350      '        y   '       650  ^^        300 

Euseb.   Samaritan  * 1^06  +       04.2  =  22J.8 

950   '    ^^  50        ^       1000 

Jos.  Septuagint 2256  —  +   992   —    =3248  

600  700  1300 


*  The  1306  of  the  Samaritan  was  written  as  the  "  1307th  "  year  for 
the  flood  (as  seen  in  Eusebius);  the  53  years  of  Lamech  being  doubt- 
less only  the  53d  year  (or  52  complete),  i.  c,  30  years  taken  fi'om  [i]82, 
as  20  are  taken  from  Methuselah's  [i]87,  with  Jared  [i]6o. 

f  With  the  age  of  Terah  (Gen.  xi:  32)  alike  in  the  Hebrew  and  the 
Lxx,  the  inspired  statement  of  Stephen  in  Acts  vii:  4  (see  ver.  55), 
drawn  doubtless  from  authentic  tradition,  requii^es  the  addition  of  60 
years  to  the  chronology  of  Period  B,  making  352  years  as  Usher  and 
others  have  put  it.  Gen.  xit  27,  is  explained  as  a  reversal  of  the  sons' 
names,  Abraham  being  put  first  on  account  of  his  pre-eminence  in  the 
history  to  follow,  though  Haran  was  probably  the  first-born  at  "70 
years  "'  of  his  father;  while  Abraham  was  born  60  years  Jlater,  or  "  75 
years"  before  his  father  died  at  205.  (Compare  ver.  32  with  xii:  4.) 
The  gi'eater  age  of  Haran  is  indicated  by  his  previous  death,  with  a 
son  Lot  to  emigrate  at  an  early  date  out  of  Chaldea.  (xi:  31.)  See 
'i  58,  note. 


302  PERIOD    A,    B 

§  3.     We  here  learn  the  following  facts: 

(i)  The  tens  and  units  agree  in  the  present  Heb.  and  the  Sept.  as 
represented  by  Jos.,  and  substantially  so  in  the  Sam.  Therefore,  the 
changes  made  among  them  are  e^ien  hundreds  to  or  from  the  numbers 
of  Josephus. 

(2)  The  changes  wei"e  Vl\-a.A&  purposely,  by  even  hundreds  transferred 
from  one  side  to  the  other  of  the  births,  adjusting  both  Periods  A  and 
B  at  once  and  applied  to  some  two  out  of  the  three  texts,  Heb.,  Sam., 
Sep. 

§  4.  (3)  The  Sam.  is  inconsistent  as  to  birth  ages  in  the  Periods  A 
and  B,  and  in  other  respects.  It  shows  its  artificiality  in  the  changed 
life-ages  of  Jared,  Methusaleh,  and  Lamech,  adjusting  them  all  to  die 
at  the  flood;  and  this  can  not  have  been  the  original  text.  Therefore, 
the  only  question  is  this:  Is  the  present.Heb.  a  diminution  from  Jose- 
phus as  the  original  Heb.,  or  is  the  Sep.  represented  by  Josephus  an 
enlargement  from  the  present  Hebrew  as  the  original? 

(4)  Upon  this  question,  testing  the  different  totals  obtained  in  the 
three  texts  as  to  the  favorite  jubilee  reckoning  of  the  Jews,  we  have  as 
follows: 

A,  B,  -I-  Period  C  =  Exodus  A.  M. 

Heb. . . .  1948  )  (  2453  )  (  — 3  dropped  ^50  jubilees 

Sam 2248  -    +  505    =   -  2753  -    -H  49   -  -|-4otoJosh.  =57  jubilees 

Sep 3248  )  (  3753  )  (  =  76  jubilees  and  29  over. 

Here  we  see  that  the  Sep.  reckoning  is  the  only  one  free  from  the 

superstitious  Jewish  calculation  of  jubilees;  and  this  gives  a  strong  pre- 
sumption in  favor  of  the  Sep.  as  the  original  text.     (See  afterward.) 

?  5.  (5)  If  the  Sep.  is  an  enlargement  upon  the  Heb.  as  the  orig- 
inal text,  then  it  became  so  at  its  formation,  as  early  as  250  B.  C.  For, 
no  copy  of  the  Sep,  has  ever  been  found,  containing  the  Heb.  num- 
bers; and  not  only  Josephus,  as  early  as  the  first  century,  but  also  De- 
metrius, the  Jewish  historian  (220  B.  C),  as  well  as  Eupolemus  (174 
B.  C),  use  the  larger  Sept.  values  alone. 

(6)  As  a  purposed  change  of  the  text  made  at  that  time  there  is  no 
conceivable  motive  adequate  to  account  for  it.  Is  it  suggested  that 
all  peoples  have  a  tendency  to  magnify  their  antiquity?  But  in  this 
case  the  lengthening  made  by  Jews  is  not  of  their  own  nationality,  but 
of  pre-national  times. 

Is  it  suggested  (as  in  the  Bib.  Sacra,  April,  1890,  p.  300),  "that 
these  changes  were  made  by  the  Sep.  translators  or  others  for  the  sake 
of  accommodating  the  Mosaic  narrative  to  the  imperative  demands  of 
the  accepted  Egyptian  antiquity?"  But  when  we  remember  that  the 
fabulous  Egyptian  chronology,  made  30,000  years  before  the  flood,  and 
over  4,000  down  thence  to  the  time  of  the  Israelitish  Exodus,  we  see 
that  there  is  no  possible  imitation  of  this  in  the  Septuagint. 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  303 

^6.  Moreover,  to  suppose  such  an  imperative  demand,  is  much 
more  of  an  argument  for  its  having  been  originally  met  in  the  Hebrew 
text  by  Moses  himself,  who  was  "learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the 
Egyptians  ";  especially  when  it  is  claimed  (as  it  is  by  the  writer  cited) 
that  Moses  could  not  have  meant  to  give  the  shorter  reckoning  of  the 
Hebrew  as  a  bona  fide  chronology  in  presence  of  the  Egyptian  claims 
to  antiquity.  If  the  Hebrew  numbers  were  not  meant  as  chronology, 
but  only  "  as  a  conspectus  of  individual  lives  "  and  their  length,  as  the 
writer  urges, — then  Moses  could  have  selected  and  arranged  those  num- 
bers to  look  like  satisfying  Egyptian  demands,  just  as  well  as  the  Lxx 
could  do  it;  and  he  would  be  the  more  likely  originator  of  the  larger 
numbers. 

>J  7.  Or,  if  the  Lxx  also  viewed  those  numbers  as  not  meant  for 
chronology  (as  the  writer  also  "urges),  then  still  they  could  not  deliber- 
ately change  them,  whether  to  suit  E^gyptians,  or  merely  "  to  make  a 
more  symmetjical  division  of  individual  lives  "  (the  reason  urged  by 
the  writer),  without  a  belying  of  the  individual  lives  given  by  the  He- 
brew text.  A  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Lxx  translators  to  furnish  more 
time  for  the* play  of  Egyptian  fables  concerning  their  antiquity,  or 
especially  a  mere  wish  to  make  the  numbers  look  more  symmetrical, 
could,  by  no  possibility,  be  an  adequate  motive  to  constrain  those  70 
learned  Jewish  magnates  to  violate  the  Hebrew  text  before  them,  and 
purposely  falsify  the  Scripture  which  all  Jews  (down  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament times)  so  sedulously  guarded. 

(7)  If  the  Sep.  is  thus  an  enlargement  upon  the  Heb.,  then  the 
Sam.  is  also  a  modification  made  upon  the  Heb.;  and  as  such  it  is 
utterly  inexplicable.  For,  the  Sam.  enlarges  the  Heb.  in  Period  B,  but 
diminishes  it  in  Period  A,  the  result  being  a  net  increase  of  only  300, 
instead  of  the  1300  excess  of  the  Sep.  For  so  slight  a  result  as  an  en- 
largement of  time  there  could  be  no  motive.  And  to  suppose  the 
change  made  (as  does  the  writer  in  the  Bib.  Sacra,  p.  300)  merely  to 
render  the  numbers  in  Period  A  more  symmetrical,  while  Period  B  is 
thus  put  in  still  more  unsymmetrical  contrast  with  it,  offers  no  ade- 
quate motive  at  all  for  such  proposed  mutilation  of  Scripture. 

'i  8.  If  the  Sam.  manipulator  merely  thought  it  important  enough 
to  mutilate  by  .reducing  Jared,  Methusaleh,  and  Lamech,  so  as  to  have 
a  regular  diminution  of  life  and  age  of  parentage  down  to  the  flood, 
why  did  he  proceed  in  Period  B  to  do  the  very  opposite,  by  enlarging 
the  ages  of  parentage  after  the-  flood  to  100  years  more  than  those 
before,  when  by  leaving  the  Hebrew  here  untouched  he  would  have 
his  desired  decrease  all  the  way  through  ?  We  repeat,  the  Sam.  text 
is  utterly  inexplicable  on  the  supposition  that  the  Hebrew  was  the 
original  text. 


.4£ 


304 


CHAPTER  I. 

Is  THE  Hebrew  Corrupt  ? 

§  9.  (8)  But  if,  on  the  contrary,  the  present  Heb.  is  a  diminution 
made  from  Jos.  (or  a  Sep.  vakae)  as  the  original  text,  then  it  was  not 
made  until  about  the  second  century,  or  after  the  time  of  Josephus. 
For  he  professes  to  be  giving  the  numbers  from  his  Hebrew  Bible,  (see 
in  his  preface  to  the  Antiq.);  and  he  has  them  in  .the  enlarged  form  of 
the  Sep.  This  is  seen  at  Antiq.  I,  iii:  4,  and  vi:  5.  Thus,  2256-1-992; 
Nahor's  129  being  corrupted  to  120,  and  the  2  years  after  the  flood  cor- 
rupted to  12;  while  the  present  Hebrew  total  292  here  is  a  corruption 
from  Jos.'  own  true  total  "992,"  as  seen  from  his  items  added  up. 
Neither  Jos.  nor  any  writer  as  early  as  he  has  the  diminished  total  of 
the  present  Heb.,  though  great  efforts  have  been  made,  by  corruptions 
of  his  text,  to  have  him  so  appear. 

'  'Josephus'  total  after  (as  well  as  before)  the  flood  has  been  corrupted 
so  as  to  agree  with  the  present  Heb.  so  confusing  Jos.  that  chronologists 
can  not  agree  on  him.  It  was  all  done  before  the  time  of  Eusebius, 
who  cites  him  as  having  to  the  death  of  Moses  'near  3,000  years,' 
instead  of  the  correct  '  near  4,000.' "  Jacksoti,  p.  119.  For' Jos.  says 
that  the  Old  Testament  down  to  Nehemiah  (over  1,000  years  later) 
"contains  the  history  of  5,000  years."  Antiq.  Pr-ef.  j,  Vs.  Ap.,  /,  7.) 
See  Restor.  Jos.,  ^  71. 

I  10.  At  Antiq.  10,  viii:  5,  the  interpolation  is  evident,  leaving  out 
the  "  2  years  after  the  flood"  (Gen.  xi:  10),  which  Josephus  is  careful 
to  put  in  (see  his  3,  vi:  5).  Thus  it  reads  as  if  "  1062;^  "-f  505-1-290= 
"1857^^"  back  to  the  flood  (corrupted  to  ig57>^)-(-i656=  "  3513^^ 
to  creation;  whereas,  Jos.  would  have  put  it  '  io62j^ '+505-1-992= 
2559>^+2256=48i5^.  There  is  like  interpolation  at  Ant.  8,  iii:  i, 
where  we  are  given  "  1022"  (corrupt  io2o)-|-Ab.  75-|-6o-|-290="  1447  " 
(corrupt  1440)  to  the  flood-|-i656="  3103  "  corrupt  3102)  to  the  creation.' 
In  the  interpolation,  not  only  is  the  "  2  years  after  the  flood"  left  out, 
but  the  60  yeai^s  (of  Usher)  before  Abraham's  birth  are  put  in,  which 
may  go  to  indicate  when  this  corrupt  figuring  was  imposed  upon 
Josephus.  Plainly  a  mighty  effort  has  been  made  by  corruptors 
to  make  Jos.  seem  to  endorse  the  present  Heb.  text.  But  this  attempt 
to  set  Jos.  in'confusion  and  contradiction  of  himself  is  obviously 
exposed.  So  tl^e  present  Hebrew  numbers  can  not  be  found  as  early 
as  Josephus. 

§  II.  (9)  If  the  present  Heb.  is  a  diminution  made  from  Jos.  (or 
a  Sep.  value)  as  the  original  text,  and  gotten  up  (say)  within  a  century 
after  his  day,  then  we  can  see  an  adequate  motive  to  account  for 
the  purposed  change   made  in  the   Heb.  text.     For  the  Jews,   who 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  305 

mostly  possessed  and  controlled  the  Hebrew,  were  then  very  bitter 
against  the  Christians,  and,  in  order  to  disprove  the  claims  of  Jesus  as 
the  Messiah  appointed  to  come  "in  the  last  days,  they  may  have  been 
tempted  to  the  desperate  step  of  lessening  the  Biblical  age  of  the  world 
so  as  to  plead  that  "  the  last  days  "  of  it  were  not  yet  arrived.  (And 
may  they  not  have  excused  themselves  for  such  mutilation  by 
some  such  theory  as  that  lately  gotten  up,  that  those  numbers  were 
not  really  meant  for  chronology,  and  so  might  be  adjusted  differently 
without  much  harm  )?  They  were  early  accused  of  making  such  cor- 
ruptions, and  for  this  very  pui'pose,  and  may  not  the  complaint  be 
true  ? 

§  12.     Here  note  these  particulars: 

(a.)  It  was  the  Jews,  who  in  the  second  century  mostly  possessed 
and  controlled  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  "  Few  Christians  then  under- 
stood the  Hebrew.  So  it  was  easy  to  corrupt  it.  And  most  Hebrew 
copies  were  lost  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  destruction  in 
the  reign  of  Hadrian."  [Jacksoji.)  In  the  early  centuries  the  Christ- 
ians used  and  depended  upon  the  Sep.,  which  was,  therefore,  slighted 
by  the  Jews,  who  watched  to  see  if  it  was  not  corrupted  by  the  Christ- 
ians. "Even  Jews  would  have  detected  and  condemned  it  had  it 
been  the  Sep.  corrupted."  (id.)  "  Since  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
the  Jews  condemn  and  reject  the  Sep.  as  a  corruption  and  falsifica- 
tion of  the  word  of  God,  and  the  Talmud  designates  the  origin  of  the 
Sep.  as  a  disastrous  day."     {Seyffm-tli,  p.  iji.) 

t  13.  (b)  It  was  a  theory  very  current  in  the  early  Christian 
church,  that  the  world  was  to  last  ?^  great  week,  or  seven  of  the  looo- 
year  days  of  God,  (4s©"  xc:  4;  II  Pet.  iii:  8);  and  that  in  "the  last 
days  "  of  that  world's  week,  according  to  the  prophets,  Messiah  would 
appear.  And,  as  by  the  Septuagint  chronology,  they  had  the  age  of 
the  world  in  the  time  of  Herod  as  about  5500  years,  they  judged  this  to 
be  m  the  very  midst  of  the  sixth  day  (or  Friday  of  time)  /.  c.,  in  the 
last  days  of  the  world's  week.  This  the  early  Christians  urged  as  an 
argument  for  Christ  as  the  true  Messiah,  he  having  thus  a]ipeared  at 
the  fitting  time  in  the  world's  history.  Rom.  v:  6.  (See  autlioi ities 
gii'eii  by  Jackson,  p.  gy.) 

t  14.  We  see  how  prominent  was  this  view,  by  the  testimonv  of 
the  "  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,"  one  of  the  purest  and  most  valuable  of 
the  apocraphal  books;  which  we  are  told  was  "of  very  gi'eat  antiq- 
uity," and  being  "in  use  for  public  reading  in  some  of  the  churches  two 
hundred  years  after  the  apostles,"  must  have  existed  long  before  that. 
It  says,  ch.  xiv:  5,  "The  angel  said  to  Seth,  thou  canst  not  by  any 
means  obtain  it  [the  blessing]  till  the  last  day  and  tmies,  namely,  till 
five  thousand  and  five  hundred  years  be  past;  then  will  Christ  come  on 
earth,"  etc.     The  same  is  repeated  at  ch.  xxii:  11,  and  again  at  ver.  13;, 


PERIOD    A,     B 


after  which  follows  a  computation  of  the  Old  Testament  dates  to'iaake 
out  the  5500  years  at  the  birth  of  Christ.     (See  §  78.)  i. , 

This  reckoning  of  5500  A.  M.  at  the  nativity  formed  the  basis  M 
the  chronology  of  Julius  Africanus  (A.  D,  200),  and  all  the  other  early 
chroniclers  of  the  church.  Of  course,  this  reckoning  and  this  claim  as ' 
to  "the  last  days  "  must  have  provoked  the  Jewish  leaders,  who  were 
so  bitter  against  the  Christians,  and  would  naturally  tempt  them  to 
make  the  figures  of  their  original  Hebrew  show  a  more  recent  origin 
of  the  world,  as  only  4,000  years  old  or  less;  so  that  they  could  plead, 
that  the  last  days  had  not  come  and  Messiah  was  not  yet  due.  * 

g  15.  (c)  We  know  that  the  Jews  did  in  those  days  purpose/}'  cor- 
rnpt  their  chronology  of  the  time  back  to  the  captivity,  in  order  to  ad- 
just the  "  seventy  weeks  "  prophecy  of  Daniel  to  their  own  wishes  for 
a  Messiah  not  yet  due,  in  opposition  to  the  Christian  claims.  In  A.  D. 
130,  Rabbi  Akiba  in  behalf  of  the  Jewish  people  devised  the  modern 
Jewish  chronology,  still  used  by  the  Jews  of  our  day;  wherein  the  time 
is  put  as  "  seventy  years  captivity+352  years  to  the  Christian  era-f-69 
years  to  A.  D.  7o=the  491st  year  (10  jubilees)  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem."  This  makes  the  490  years  or  "  70  weeks  "  of  Daniel  reach 
from  the  close  of  the  70  years  captivity  to  70  years  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  /.  c.,  to  A.  D.  140,  just  after  the  devising  of  this 
scheme, — or  later,  according  as  the  70  weeks  were  started  from  any 
point^?/A'r  the  captivity.  "This  view  was  promoted  by  the  false 
Christ  whom  the  Jews  then  got  up,  about  A.  D.  128."  {Jackson.)  Or 
rather,  the  false  Christ  grew  out  of  this  chronological  figuring.  (See 
Period  E,  55  53,  note.) 

§  16.  Here  was  a  very  adroit  scheme  of  Jewish  chronology  (still 
existent  before  our  eyes),  gotten  up  evidently  on  purpose  to  postpone 
Messiah's  coming,  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Christian  claim  concerning 
Jesus  of  Nazareth; — a  scheme  which  did  not  scruple  to  drop  out  near 
200  years  from  the  true  chronology  of  the  captivity,  which  we  all  know 
ended  537  B.  C,  instead  of  the  352  B.  C,  where  they  assign  it.     Since 


*Soin  the  "General  Epistle  of  Barnabas,"  companion  of  Paul,  sup- 
posed by  many  to  belong  properly  in  the  New  Testament  canon,  we 
read  (ch.  xiii:  4-6):  "Consider,  my  children,  what  that  signifies. 
He  finished  them  [His  works]  in  six  days.  The  meaning  of  it  is  this: 
That  in  six  thousand  vears  the  Lord  God  will  bring  all  things  to  an 
end.  For  with  him  a  thousand  years  are  one  day.  *  *  *  When 
His  Son  shall  come  *  *  *  then  he  shall  gloriously  rest  in  that 
seventh  day."  Ver.  g,  10,  '  The  Sabbaths,  saith  He,  which  ye  now 
keep,  are  not  acceptable  unto  me,  but  those  which  I  have  made-,  when, 
resting  from  all  things,  I  shall  begin  the  8th  day,  that  is,  the  begin- 
ning of  the  other  world.  For  which  cause  we  observe  the  8th  day 
with  gladness,  in  which  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead."  (How  general  this 
tradition  then  was,  concerning  6,000  years,  -see  Coteler,  Anjiot.  in  loco. 
Edit.  Oxon..  p.  go.) 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY.  807 

the  Jews  of  that  day  did  thus  fabricate  a  fals€  chronology  in  their 
att^empt  to  defeat  Christianity;  the  only  question  is,  Did  they  go 
fjLirther,  and  corrupt  the  numbers  of  Genesis  for  the  same  purpose  ? 
Did  they  drop  out  from  1300  to  1500  years  from  the  Hebrew  text  (then 
in  their  control,  in  order  to  reduce  the  world's  age  below  4000,  so  as  to 
desti^oy  the  argument  of  Christians  concerning  "the  last  days." 

^  17.  (d)  It  is  a  grave  charge  to  make  against  them.  But  the 
charge  was  freely  made  in  those  early  times.  "  Justin  Martyr  (A.  D. 
142)  mentions  several  instances  of  their  altering  and  erasing  prophesies 
concerning  the  death  of  Christ  in  the  Septuagint.  *  *  *  Epiphanius 
{A.  D.  580)  /■;/  De  Mcnsiir,  p.  171,  says  that  Aquila  (pupil  of  Rabbi 
Akaba)  perverted  the  Heb.  text  to  invalidate  the  prophesies  concern- 
ing Christ,"  etc.  (Jackson.)  "  Origin  {Cont.  C.  /.,  40),  Justin  Martyr, 
{Dial,  c.  Tryph.,  68,  7/),  Epiphanius,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  Augustine, 
Julian  of  Toledo,  Syncellus,  and  many  others,  declare  that  the  true 
chronology  of  the  pentateuch  was  preserved  in  the  Sep.,  but  shortened 
by  the  Jews  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem."       (Seyffarth,  p.  137.) 

"The  Jews  ixi  Spain  openly  assailed  the  Christian  church,  A.  D. 
680,  with  the  reproach  that  Christ  having  been  born  1500  years  too 
early,  was  therefore  a  false  Messiah;  whilst  they  maintained  that  the 
true- Messiah  would  come  1500  years  later,  /.  t\,  in  the  sixth  thousand 
years  after  the  creation."     {fd.,  p.  ijj.) 

^  18.  "Jerome  asserts  again  and  again  (A.  D.  360),  that  the 
Hebrew  text  had  been  corrupted  by  the  Jews;  .;'.  i,*-.,  at  Gal.  iii:  10,  13. 
Augustine  (A.  D.  400),  Ckn'f.  Dei.,  X7>:  11,  says:  '  The  Christians  be- 
lieve that  the  truth  is  contained  in  these  [the  Sep.  Scriptures],  not  in 
those  of  the  Jews;  *  *  *  that  it  is  incredible  that  the  seventy 
interpreters  could  have  erred,  or  could  have  lied,  as  they  had  nothing 
to  gain  by  it;  but  that  on  the  contrary  the  Jews  had  made  certain 
alterations  in  their  books,  in  order  thus  to  diminish  the  authority  of 
ours.'  "  {Seyffartli,  p,  ijS,  the  Latin  given.  Also  Jackson.)  Syncel- 
lus says  (p.  84):  "I  concur  entirely  in  the  opinion,  that  this  shorten- 
ing was  a  criminal  act  of  the  Jews." — "Augustine  himself  lays  the 
blame  to  a  first  copier  of  the  Septuagint,  in  order  to  make  the  ages  at 
puberty  agree."     {Jackson.) 

t  ig.  This  idea  of  Augustine  is  the  only  early  suggestion  we  find, 
of  a  possible  corruption  by  the  Sep.  And  Augustine  could  not  have 
seen  Josephus'  numbers,  cited  from  the  Hebrew  just  as  in  the  Lxx;  or 
he  would  not  have  made  such  a  suggestion.  And  as  to  the  modern 
suggestion,  that  the  Lxx  themselves  expanded  the  original  chronology 
1500  years  to  harmonize  it  with  the  Egyptian  antiquity — we  have 
already   seen   (here    at    l   5)    that    neither   this    nor    the    theory   just 


308  PERIOD    A,     B 

named  is  reasonable,  or  furnishes  an  adequate  motive  for  such  corrup- 
tion at  that  time.  * 

We  will  not  presume  to  decide  the  question,  whether  the  present 
Hebrew  numbers  in  Gen.  v,  xi,  are  a  coiTuption  introduced  by  the  Jews, 
as  above  charged.  But  we  must  say,  that  an  adequate  vwtive  is  seen 
for  such  corruption, — while  no  motive  can  be  discovered  for  the  Sep. 
numbers  as  a  corruption,  since  they  were  in  existence  long  before 
Christianity  and  the  controversies  arising  from  it. 


*§  20.     Take  some  later  opinions: 

"Abraham  Ecchelensis  [Hist.  Orient.  Sup.,  p.  lyj),  a  learned 
Syi"ian  Maronite,  charges  the  Jews  with  having  corrupted  the  chronol- 
ogy of  their  Scriptures,  upon  the  testimonies  of  their  most  ancient 
rabbis,"  etc.     [Jackson.) 

"  Abulfeda  says:  '  The  Jews  diminished  the  age  of  the  world  1475 
years,  in  order  to  make  themselves  living  /;/  t/ie  iiiidst  of  the  7000  vears 
agi'eed  by  all,  not  in  t/te  lastti/iies.  The  Greek  version  is  approved  h\  tlie 
most  accurate  chronologists."    {Seyffarth,  p.  144.    The  Latin  is  given.) 

"  Abul-pharagius,  another  learned  Mohammedan,  says:  'Accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrew,  from  creation  to  the  Messiah  is  4220  years,  but  by 
the  Sep.  in  the  hands  of  almost  all  Christians  it  is  5586.  Which 
diminution  of  the  Hebrew  is  ascribed  to  the  Jewish  doctors,  because  by 
the  law,  the  prophets,  and  the  ancient  rabbis,  Christ  was  to  come  in 
the  last  times.  So  they  reduced  the  patriarchs,  bringing  Jesus  in  the 
5th  milleniad,  about  the  midst  of  the  world's  years,  which  all  give  as 
7000,  saying  the  time  of  Messiah  is  not  yet  arrived.  But  the  Sept. 
reckoning  makes  it  the  6th  milleniad,  and  the  proper  time  for  Mes- 
siah.' "     {Seyffarth,  p.  144.     The  Latin  is  given.) 

"  There  is  extant  also  a  modern  edition  of  the  Heb.  Bible,  with  a 
German-Rabbinical  interpretation,  in  which  Daniel's  seventy  weeks 
are  wanting."     {/d.,-p.  126.) 

"Luther  and  dthers  showed  in  many  places,  e.  g.,  Isa.  ix:  6,  that 
the  rabbis  did,  in  A.  D.  800,  falsify  the  Hebrew  text,  for  the  purpose 
of  discrediting  or  obliterating  certain  prophesies  in  respect  to  Christ." 
(Id.,  p.  170.) 

"  The  Hebrew  was  corrupted  by  the  later  Jews  themselves,  and  so 
the  Christians  were  imposed  upon.  The  true  Mosaic  chronology  was 
divinely  preserved  in  the  Greek  translation,  established  centuries  be- 
fore these  corruptions  were  introduced.  It  was  also  preserved  in  Jo- 
sephus,  who  says  he  followed  the  Hebrew  copies.  The  variations 
were  made  to  confound  the  time  of  Christ's  coming.  But  by  a  good 
Providence  the  truth  was  preserved.  So  Josephus  has  been  corrupted 
in  many  places  to  agree  with  the  present  Hebrew;  and  the  new  Greek 
translations  of  Aquila  (A.  D.  128),  Theodotian  (185),  Symmachus  (2co), 
vary  nuich  from  the  Sep.  The  change  (in  leaving  out  Cainan)  was  • 
made  between  A.  D.  100  and  120,  before  Aquila  was  employed  to  get  up 
the  new  translation."  (Chron.  Antiq.  by  JoJdi  Jackson,  folio,  London. 
1732.)     See  Period  D,  Appendix  D,  §  100. 


DILCVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  309 


CHAPTER  II. 
Process  of  Corruption. 

^  21.  (lo)  If  the  present  Hebrew  is  a  diminution  made  from  Jos. 
(or  a  Sep.  value)  as  the  original  text,  and  gotten  up  (say)  within  a  cen- 
tur}'  after  his  day, — then  we  can  see  how  the  Samaritan  copy  got  its 
peculiar  values,  which  are  inexplicable  with  the  theory  that  the  Sep. 
is  the  corrupted  text.  (See  here,  'i  7.)  The  Samaritan  was  used 
as  a  medium  for  corrupting  the  Hebrew,  by  a  process  traceable  as  fol- 
lows: 

If  the  Hebrew  text  is  corrupt,  then  the  Samaritan  is  also  corrupt. 
(See  here,  ?  4.)  And  the  corruption  of  the  Samaritan  copy  prob- 
ably preceded  that  of  the  old  Hebrew  copy,  preparing  the  way  for  it. 
For,  we  find  the  Samaritan  chronology  existent  before  we  have  any 
traces  of  the  Hebrew  reckoning.  The  Jewish  "  Book  of  Jubilees  '"  is 
a  work  written  about  the  year  A.  D.  100,  as  all  are  agreed.*  It  is  a 
Pharisaic  "  Targum  of  those  days  in  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament 
Judaism."  It  wonderfully  exalts  all  the  legal  niceties  of  ritualism, 
teaching  that  they  were  first  ordinances  in  heaven,  whence  they  were  im- 
parted to  Moses.  And  it  carefully  dates  every  event  of  Genesis  bj-  a 
system  of  fifty  Jubilees  as  reaching  from  creation  to  Joshua's  enter- 
ing Canaan;  thus  making  Jubilee  Chronology  to  antedate  the  Mosaic 
institution  of  Jubilees,  and  indeed  to  have  been  prearranged  "in  the 
councils  of  "heaven,"  even  "  according  to  the  wrecks  of  the  Jubilees  to 
eternity."     (See  its  ch.  i:  22-24.) 

*  i;  22.  "Book  of  J  ubilees.  The  editor  of  the  Ethiopic  texts  and  Ger- 
man translator  of  this  book.  Prof.  Dillman,  has  proved  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  scholars  in  general,  that  the  book  is  a  production  of  the  first 
Christian  century.  Ewald  shows  that  the  book  presupposes  and  cites 
those  parts  of  the  book  of  Enoch  which  date  up  to  about  the  birth  of 
Christ,  while  it,  in  turn,  has  been  used  and  quoted  by  the  Test,  of  the 
Twelve  Pat.,  a  work  similar  in  spirit  and  a  product  of  the  early  part 
of  the  second  centui'y.  This  will  decide  the  end  of  the  first  century 
after  Christ  as  the  date  for  the  composition  of  the  Book  of  Jubilees. 
By  Christian  authors  the  work  is  not  quoted  until  later.  Epi]ihanius, 
Jerome  and  Rufinus  are  the  first  to  mention  it,  while  Cedrenus,  Syncel- 
lus,  and  other  Byzantine  writers  quote  from  it  at  length.  But  the 
testimony  of  the  Test,  xii,  Pat.  is  decisive  as  to  the  terminus  ad  qiittii. 
Ronsch  confidently  claims  that  it  was  written  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem. 

"  As  the  book  is  undoubtedly  the  work  of  a  Palestinian  Jew  and  written 
in  Hebrew,  it  can  fairly  be  condsidered  as  an  outgrowth  of  that  school 
and  spirit  of  Judaism,  which  we  in  the  New  Testament  find  arrayed  in 
opposition  to  Christianity  and  its  work.  The  book,  can  best  be  de- 
scribed by  calling  it  a  haggadic  commentary  on  certain  portions  of 
Genesis  and  the  opening  chapters  of  Exodus,  and  it   is  thus  the  oldest 


310  PERIOD    A,    B 

This  Book  of  Jubilees  has  the  time  "  1307  years  "  of  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  as  the  period  before  the  flood,  saying  (v:  20)  that  Noah 
entered  the  ark  at  "the  6th  year  of  the  5th  week  of  the  27th  Jubilee," 
i.  i\,  at  1307  years.  So,  then,  the  present  corrupted  text  of  the 
Samaritan  copy  was  in  existence  at  that  time,  about  A.  D.  100.  Already 
had  the  Sep.  number  (of  Jos.)  "  2256  years  "  before  the  flood,  been  low- 
ered 900  years,  by  transferring  100  years  from  the  time  before  to  the  time 
after  parentage  of  each  patriarch;  and  lowered  also  by  20  years  more 
taken  from  Methusaleh's,  and  30  years  more  taken  from  Lainech's  age 
at  parentage,  in  order  to  make  a  regular  decrease  in  the  age  of  parent- 
age throughout.  And  thus  had  the  1306  years  (called  1307th  year)  been 
obtained,  or  a  reduction  of  950  years.  This,  with  a  loss  of  50  years 
from  the  992  of  the  Sep.  (as  in  Jos.)  after  the  flood,  gave  a  reduction 
of  1000  years;  which  lessened  the  Sep.  from  about  5500  to  only  about 
4500  at  the  time  of  Herod,  and  plainly  answered  a  purpose  of  argument 
against  the  Christian  claim  as  to  "the  last  days."  The  Samaritan 
corruption  thus  seems  to  have  been  the  first  attempt  in  that  direction, 
made  some  time  in  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era.* 

§  24.  But,  as  found  in  the  Jewish  Book  of  Jubilees,  it  was  a  later 
attempt.  For  this  book  adds  a  large  reduction  of  the  period  after  the 
flood  to  that  already  made  in  the  period  before.  The  corruption  of 
the  Samaritan  copy  had  not  ventured  to  meddle  seriously  with  the 
time  after  the  flood,  leaving  it  as  942  (as  found  also  in  some  copies  of 
the  Lxx,  see  Euseb.),  and  thinking  the  loss  of  1000  years  sufficient  for 
its  purpose.  But  the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  to  make  still  fur- 
ther reductions,   and  at  the  same  time  to   accommodate  his  Jubilee 


of  the  Midrashim,  and  a  representative  example  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  learned  contemporaries  of  Christ  made  use  of  the  Biblical  books 
for  their  own  peculiar  purpose  and  object.  It  is  a  sample  of  an  exeget- 
ical  Targum  of  those  days  in  the  spirit  of  New  Testament  Judaism. 
*  *  ■"  One  scholar  advocates  a  Samaritan  origin,  another  an  Essene; 
but  all  agree  as  to  its  thoroughly  Jewish  origin,  and  in  general  its  rep- 
resentative character,  while  Ronsch  even  thinks  that  he  detects  an 
anti-Christian  tendency.  *  *  *  The  center  of  its  orthodoxy  is  the 
law,  and  its  parajahernalia,  and  all  means  lawful  and  unlawful,  are  put 
into  rec]uisition  to  exalt  the  importance  of  that  law  and  to  increase  its 
authority.  Outwardly  the  leading  feature  is  the  chronological  system 
of  the  book,  namely,  its  division  of  all  ancient  history  of  the  Isi^aelites 
according  to  the  sacred  periods  of  Jubilees  of  forty-nine  years;  and  the 
time  between  the  creation  and  the  entrance  of  Israel  into  Canaan  is 
counted  as  fifty  Jubilees,  or  2450  years."  (Pre/,  of  Prof .  Schodde  to  the 
English  Trans,  in  Bib.  Sacra,  1885,  Oct.,  p.  629.) 

*One  form  of  the  Samaritan  reckoning  (reported  in  a  note  to 
Jerome's  Euseb.),  reduced  the  period  before  the  flood  down  as  low  as 
"  1070  years" — probably  by  dropping  all  the  12  hundreds  to  give  the 
1056  year  down  to  Noah's  500th  j'ear,  and  then  adding  25  to  Seth's  age 
at  parentage  (as  in  Jerome's  list),  so  making  io56th-|-25=)  1070. 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  .  311 

theory,  called  the  time  just  fifty  Jubilees  from  creation  to  Joshua's 
entering  Canaan  (when  he  supposed  the  Jewish  Jubilee  practically  to 
begin).  This  required  him  to  have  the  Samaritan  1307th  year+6ooth 
after  the  flood-(-505  to  the  Exodus+40  to  Joshua=245ist  year  or  50 
Jubilees.  (But  by-  mistake,  putting  Abraham's  entering  Canaan  at  40 
Jubilees,  so  as  to  have  the  two  migrations  just  70  weeks  or  490  years 
apart,  he  has  i307th-|-5Soth+525+40=245ist  year  as  before.) 

^  25.  This  further  reduction  of  (942 — 6ooth=)  343  years  more  after 
the  flood  (distributed  variously  upon  the  ten  generations),  increased 
the  Samaritan  loss  from  1000  up  to  1343,  giving  that  much  more  advant- 
age in  the  argument  against  the  Christians.  And  so  the  matter  stood 
at  the  writing  of  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  (say  100  A.  D.)  But  when  the 
Jewish  Rabbi  Akiba  (about  A.  D,  130)  started  the  present  Jewish  Chro- 
nology, wherein  w^e  find  the  first  mention  of  the  present  Hebrew  values 
of  Gen.  v,  xi,  and  wherein  the  chronology  from  the  captivity  to  the 
Christian  era  is  reduced  from  537  to  352  years,  as  we  have  seen— the 
object  in  this  whole  reckoning  was  evidently  to  get  as  small  a  world-age 
as  possible,  seemiugh'  for  the  purpose  of  denying  "the  last  days  " 
alleged  by  the  Christians. 

^  26.  Not  satisfied,  therefore,  with  the  Samaritan  i^eduction  of 
1,000  (made  mostly  by  whole  loo's  in  Period  A  (before  the  flood) — and 
seeing  that  the  further  reduction  in  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  not  being  by 
even  loo's.  could  not  creditably  be  applied  to  the  Scripture  text — they 
concluded  not  to  follow  the  Samaritan  plan,  of  taking  100  years  from 
every  parent  in  Period  A,  but  not  Period  B  (which  seemed  uiconsistent 
and  irregular);  but  proceeded  to  take  100  years  from  each  parent  in 
both  pejiods,  except  in  the  case  of  Methusaleh,  Lamech.  and  Noah, 
where  this  could  not  be  done  without  disturbing  the  other  numbers 
which  give  the  life-length  of  those  men. 

g  27.  This  left  them  1556+292  instead  of  the  Sep.  2256+992  (as  in 
Jos.),  a  reduction  of  700  j^ears  upon  each  period  (a  very  systematic 
thing),  and  gave  them  an  advantage  of  1400  years  loss  in  the  argument 
with  the  Christians  (in  place  of  the  1343  years  given  in  the  Book  of 
Jubilees.)  However,  when  the  corruption  of  the  period  (D)  from  the 
Exodus  to  the  temple  became  soon  established  as  "the  480th  year" 
(instead  of  the  true  value,  the  580  years,  as  we  have  shown  elsewhere), 
then  this  by  offset  allowed  Jared  (in  Period  A)  to  retain  his  original  162 
(not  62),  so  as  to  have  no  age  at  parentage  go  below  65,  which  was 
deemed  a  proper  thing.  Thus  the  whole  loss  was  kept  at  1400,  but  was 
now  only  600  in  Period  A,  and  700  in  Period  B,  with  100  in  Period  D 
(while  some  copies  of  the  Lxx  by  insertion  of  Cainan,  etc.,  had  the 
whole  variation  1500  or  even  more).  And  thus  it  came  to  pass,  that 
"all  eastei^n  copies  of  the  Heb.  (earliest  made?)  have  1556,  but  all 
western  copies  have  1656,  we  are  told  by  an  author  of  good  credit." 
(Jackson.)     See  Period  D,  ^  83. 


312  PERIOD    A,    B 

§  28.  We  can  thus  clearly  see  the  steps  by  which  the  Samaritan 
and  then  the  Hebrew  corruption  came  in,  within  the  first  and  then 
within  the  second  century;  until  Eusebius  (A.  D.  320)  sets  forth  the 
completed  corruption  in  full.  All  this  upon  the  supposition,  that  the 
Septuagint  numbers  (as  in  Jos.)  agreed  with  the  original  Hebrew  text. 
No  such  consistent  and  natural  process  of  corruption  can  we  find  on 
the  opposite  supposition,  that  our  present  Hebrew  is  the  original. 
Hence  the  presumption  is  strongly  in  favor  of  the  Septuagint  as 
correct. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Is  THE  Septuagint  Correct  ? 

§  29.  (11)  It  is  worthy  of  note,  that  when  the  new  Hebrew  text 
reduced  Jos.  2256  to  1656,  the  reduction  by  600  was  the  same  as  Noah's 
age  at  the  flood;  so  that  the  manipulator  of  the  corruption  was  merely 
making  the  16^6  years  of  Jos.  at  the  birth  of  Noah  reach  instead  to  the 
flood.  And  this  may  be  what  settled  down  the  change  to  1656,  instead 
of  1556  as  at  first  proposed;  it  was  leaving  unchanged  a  familiar  total 
before  the  flood,  only  applied  somewhat  differently.  In  like  manner, 
when  the  Samaritan  copy  reduced  Jos.  2256  to  1306,  the  reduction  by 
950  years  was  the  same  as  Noah's  total  age;  so  that  the  manipulator  of 
the  corruption  was  merely  making  the  i6j6  of  Jos.  at  the  birth  of  Noah 
reach  instead  to  the  death  of  Noah — a  well  known  total  retained,  but 
differently  applied.  Both  facts  are  curious;  and  do  they  not  serve  to 
show,  that  both  cases  were  corruptions  from  the  original  Sep.  reck- 
oning ? 

\  30.  There  are  other  presumptions  in  favor  of  the  Septuagint. 
Jared,  Methusaleh,  and  Lamech  are  alike  in  Josephus  and  the  He- 
brew, and  these  numbers  must  be  correct.  But  these  look  as  if  giving 
the  ages  at  puberty,  as  about  one-fifth  the  whole  ages,  which  is  rea- 
sonable; and  the  presumption  is  that  all  would  be  about  the  same,  as 
Jos.  has  them.  Adam,  of  course,  is  older  at  the  birth  of  Seth,  there 
being  children  before  him.  Also  the  agreement  of  the  Samaritan  with 
the  Septuagint  in  Period  B  after  the  flood,  looks  in  favor  of  the  Sep., 
as  seen  in  the  process  of  change  above  shown.* 


*  §  31.  We  have  used  the  1656+992  of  Jos.  as  fairly  representing 
the  Sep.  values,  in  supposed  accordance  with  the  old  Hebrew  text. 
But  the  following  variations  are  found  in  the  Sep.  text  itself;  each  of 
which  has  to  be  considered  by  itself,  in  determining  what  were  the 
original  figures: 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY 


313 


§  32.  (12)  Another  fact  strongly  favors  the  Septuagint  as  the  genu- 
ine original  reckoning.  We  have  seen  how  popular  it  was  with  the 
Jews,  to  conform  their  chronology  to  Jubilee  periods  of  49  years  and 
sevent3'-week  periods  of  10  Jubilees  or  490  years.  They  often  strained 
a  point  in  trying  to  make  such  cycles  fit  the  history.  So  we  find 
them  making  Jubilee  reckoning  before  there  were  any  Jubilees,  from 
the  giving  of  the  Law  back  to  the  creation.  Thus,  the  Samaritan 
copy,  which  we  have  seen  as  the  first  form  of  corruption,  has  just  57 
Jubilees  from  creation  to  possession  of  Canaan;  namely,  i307th4-942 
+75+430=2753-1-40  to  Joshua  =2793  years  -=-4g=just  57  Jubilees,  to 
the  first  year  of  another  Jubilee.     (See  \  4.) 

I  33.  Probably  the  Samaritans  reckoned  11  more  Jubilees  to  Solo- 
mon's temple,  and  10  more  to  the  second  temple,  or  (21X49=)  1029 
years  from  Joshua  down  to  the  dedication  of  the  second  temple  as  in 
B.  C.  513,  where  Jos.  has  it),  with  2  more  Jubilees  down  to  B.  C.  415, 
as  the  date  when  their  temple  was  built  on  Mt.  Gerizim  by  Sanballat, 
for  Manasseh  in  the  reign  of  Darius  Nothus,  (Jos.  II,  viii):  at  which 
time  probably  the  Samaritan  copy  of  the  Pentateuch  was  originated 
for  the  uses  of  that  temple.  [Prideencx's  Connection,  Yo\.  i,  p.  424.) 
Thus  the  Samaritans  reckoned  just  (57+23=)  80  Jubilees  or  3920  years 
A.  M.  from  creation  to  the  building  of  their  temple.  And  this  even 
calculation  by  Jubilees  is  doubtless  what  determined  the  numbers  in 
the  corruption  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  with  its  exact  i:iumber  cff 
Jubilees  at  Joshua's  entering  Canaan.  This  shows  the  artificial  char- 
acter of  the  reckoning  as  a  sure  corruption. 


A 

B 

Josephus, 

2256 
+6 

992 
Lamech  -50  Nahor. 

[In  Jackson), 

2262 
— 20 

(Deni.)     942  {Sam.) 
Methu. 

Euseb.  LXX, 

2242 

942 
+  130  Cainan. 

Demetrius, 

2242 
2262 

+       1072 — 2=3212-7-2=1656. 
+       1072= ' '  3334  ' '  +290=  "  3624. " 
+100  Nahor 

Vatican  LXX,              2242 
Bib.  Sac,  ApL,  '76.     2262 

1172 
1172 

—  130 

J.  Jackson, 
(Origen. 

2256 
1656) 

1072  (only  6  less  than  Dem.) 
1072  (Africanus.) 

Origen.    Hexap.,  &  Euseb. 
Theophilus,  (ig8  A.  D.) 


942  (Aquila,  &c.,  left  out  the  130.) 
936  (Euseb.  &  Jerome         "  ) 


314  PERIOD    A,    B 

§  34.  Then  followed  the  Book  of  Jubilees  itself  (A.  D.  100),  carry- 
ing out  the  Jubilee  scheme  still  nioi"e  fully,  as  we  saw;  with  that  inter- 
val from  creation  to  Joshua's  entering  Canaan  put  as  just  50  Jubilees, 
instead  of  57.  And  next,  the  Hebrew  text,  as  we  have  it,  is  found 
introduced  in  the  current  Jewish  Chronology  (devised  about  A.  D.  130), 
with  the  same  50  Jubilees,  but  I'eckoned  now  to  the  Exodus,  no 
longer  to  Joshua.     (Here  §  4.) 

I  35.  For,  this  present  Hebrew  text  has  1656+292+75+430=2453 
years  to  the  Exodus;  (which  Usher  increases  to  2513,  by  60  years — see 
^  2,  note — put  in  at  the  birth  of  Abraham,  as  required  by  Acts  vii:  4). 
This  2453  at  the  Exodus  is  3  years  over  50  Jubilees,  or  2450  years;  and 
this  makes  the  first  Jubilee  observed  (49  years  after)  to  come  at  the 
beginning  of  Joshua's  7th  year,  about  the  time  when  it  is  usually  under- 
stood to  have  been  actually  held;  that  is  in  connection,  with  ihejirsf  Sab- 
batic year  in  the  promised  land.  The  artificiality  of  this  scheme,  with 
just  50  Jubilee  periods  worked  in  before  any  Jubilee  reckoning  was 
known,  is  evidence  that  the  Hebrew  text  before  and  after  the  flood 
has  been  "doctored"  to  give  this  result. 

And  this  is  no  less  apparent  when  we  find  the  Modern  Jewish 
Chronology  treating  the  present  Hebrew  text  as  giving  them  just  2450 
years,  or  fifty  Jubilees  exact,  to  the  Exodus  itself,  in  the  view  that 
there  began  the  first  actual  Jubilee  period.  They  make  it  out  by  dis- 
carding the  2  years  mentioned  at  Gen.  xi:  10,  and  then  treating  the 
number  at  Ex.  xii:  40,  as  the  430th  year;  so  that  they  have  1656+290+ 
505th=2450  years,  or  2451st  year,  the  beginning  of  the  51st  Jubilee 
period  at  the  Exodus.* 

§  37.  Thus  the  artificial  Jubilee  reckonings  found  both  in  the 
Samaritan  and  in  the  present  Hebrew  text,  are  evidence  (seemingly 
convincing)  against  their  either  of  them  being  the  original  and  genuine 
account.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Septuagint,  in  any  form,  is  not  sub- 
ject to  this  objection.  As  given  in  Josephus,  it  has  2256+992+505= 
3753 -j- 49=76  Jubilee  periods  and  2g years  over;  and  none  of  the  varia- 
tions in  the  Sep.  will  give  even  Jubilees,,  either  to  the  Exodus  or  to 


*  \  36.  Even  Eusebius  (as  late  as  A.  D.  320)  follows  this  fanciful 
scheme  of  pre-dated  Jubilees;  but,  strangely,  takes  50  years  to  a  Jubi- 
lee! .Thus  he  gives  the  Hebrew  text  =2453  to  the  Exodus  +  the  47th 
year  to  the  7th  of  Joshua  =  the  2500th  year,  or  the  beginning  of 
"the  51st  Jubilee:"  making  this  (505+46^551  years,  or)  the  452d 
"  year  of  Abraham."  Then  he  makes  just  30  more  of  these  Jubilees, 
or  1500  years  to  the  end  of  Daniels'  70  weeks  (A.  D.  34),  calling  that 
(2500+1500^)  4000  A.  M.,  or  the  end  of  80  Jubilees  from  the  creation, 
and  the  year  (551+1500=)  "2051  of  Abraham."  Such  2.  fabulous 
}iiac/iine-sc/tei>ie  is  made  out  of  our  present  Hebrew  text,  by  the  very 
author  who  first  introduces  it  fully  to  the  Christian  church! 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  315 

Joshua.*  This  freedom  of  the  Sept.  reckoning  from  all  the  artificial 
Jubilee  theories  found  in  the  Samaritan  and  Hebrew  texts, — with  the 
real  Jubilee  of  the  Mosaic  law  left  to  take  care  of  itself  as  applying 
only  after  its  establishment,— this  is  a  convincing  proof  in  favor  of 
the  Septuagint  Chronology. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Net  Result. 

§  38.  We  are  not  going  to  give  our  ipse  dixit,  that  the  Septuagint 
represents  the  original  Hebrew  text  of  Gen.  v,  xi;  because  the  present 
is  eminently  a  case  of  reasoning  from  combined  probabilities,  and  every 
reader  must  judge  for  himself  what  the  balance  of  probabilities  is.  We 
will  only  say,  that  to  us  the  argument  seems  as  strong,  at  least,  for  the 
Septuagint  as  for  the  present  Hebrew. 

^  39.  The  one  great  objection,  perhaps  the  only  real  objection, 
against  accepting  at  once  the  Septuagint  chronology  as  correct,  is  the 
fear  that  this  would  w^eaken  our  hold  upon  our  Hebrew  Bible  as  the 
accurate  text  of  God's  Word,  handed  down  to  us  with  scrupulous  care 
and  fidelity  by  the  Jews  themselves.  We  know  that  they  did  most 
sedulously  guard  against  the  corruption  of  the  Hebrew  in  the  earlier 
days,  and  until  long  after  the  Septuagint  version  came  in.  And  we  are 
anxious  to  preserve  intact  this  argument  for  the  validity  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  we  have  it. 

^  40.  But  we  know  that  there  are  some  corruptions  in  the  Hebrew 
text.f  And  may  we  not  safely  take  the  ground,  that  the  Jews  were  tlie 
best  of  custodians  for  the  Scriptures,  a/tfii  they  were  cast  off  for  their 
rejection  of  Christ;  but  that  then  they  became  so  embittered  against  the 
truth,  that  they  may  have  even  corrupted  numbers  which  they  thought 
against  them;  but  only  where  it  could  be  done  by  change  of  a  single 
figure  (as  by  an  even  hundred),  without  altering  the  structure  of  a  sen- 
tence or  the  count  of  the  words,  and  without  daring  to  go  further  and 
modify  any  essential  truth.  This  at  least  we  know,  that,  in  Gods  all- 
wise  Providence,  even  this  was  not  permitted  to  occur,  until  the  Sept- 
uagint version  had  been  prepared,  and  had  received  a  divine  sanction 
through  Christ  and  his  apostles, — so  as  to  preserve  the  text,  and  to  be 

*  J.  Schwartz  (in  the  Bib.  Sacra.,  Jan.,  1888),  tries  to  make  it  do  so 
by  taking  it  as  2262-|-io40-|-6o-)-Ab'm  09-1-430=3921-^49=80  Jubilees 
and  I  over.  But  this  (especially  the  99  for  Ab.)  is  a  monstrous  perver- 
sion of  the  Septuagint. 

f  Comp.  "8  years  "  in  H  Chron.  xxxvi:  9,  with  "  18  years  "'  in  II  Ki. 
xxiv:8.  In  some  cases,  the  Heb.  is  corrected  by  the  Sept.  See  E^ek. 
xlv:  5,  Revis.,  marg. 


310  PERIOD    A,    B 

a  sure  corrector  of  any  corruption  that  might  thereafter  creep  in.  See 
what  Jackson  says  on  this  point  (here  at  §  20,  note). 

^  41.  The  Septuagint  has  its  imperfections,  we  Icnow,  especially  in 
some  parts.  But  on  the  whole  it  was  a  faithful  translation;  and  it  is 
conceded  that  the  Pentateuch  is  the  most  exactly  rendered  portion  of 
the  whole.  Philo,  the  learned  Jew,  says  of  it,  in  the  fii"st  century, 
"The  Sept.  translation  was  made  with  such  care  and  exactness,  that 
thei'e  was  not  the  least  variation  in  it  from  the  saci^ed  Hebrew  original, 
either  byadditions,  omissions,  or  otherwise."  Josephus  also  bears  wit- 
ness to  its  excellence.  And  our  divine  Lord  and  his  inspired  apostles 
made  use  of  it  as  indeed  the  word  of  God.  So  that  it  must  not  be 
decried.*  Doubtless  the  Septuagint  has  been  furnished  by  God  to  help 
us  to  the  right  knowledge  of  the  original  Scriptures. 

i?  42.  In  all  this  discussion,  we  have  used  only  the  argument  of 
textual  criticism,  and  have  made  no  reference  to  the  argument  of  science 
and  common  sense.  The  science  of  archeology  wants  all  the  time  of  the 
Septuagint  back  to  the  flood,  to  accommodate  the  early  traditions  of 
Egypt  and  other  ancient  civilizations.  The  science  of  paleontology 
wants  all  the  time  of  the  Septuagint  back  to  the  creation,  to  explain  the 
human  fossils  that  point  out  the  antiquity  of  man.  And  common- 
sense  promptly  decides  against  the  probability,  that  Noah  was  living 
in  the  times  of  Abraham,  and  Shem  was  living  in  the  times  of  Jacob, 
as  the  Hebrew  text  requires,  with  nothing  said  about  them  or  their 
dying  in  those  late  days. 

§  43.  "  Mark  the  absurdity  of  regarding  Noah  as  living  so  long  in 
Abraham's  life,  and  no  notice  taken  of  it !  Of  the  earth's  so  soon 
becoming  so  populous  as  it  was  !  Think  of  Shem  living  109  years  after 
the  establishment  of  circumcision  and  the  Abrahamic  covenant !  and 
with  such  settled  idolatry  fled  from  in  the  life-time  of  Noah  !  "  {Jack- 
son.) Prof.  Green,  of  Princeton,  points  out  the  impossibility  of  accept- 
ing such  a  chronology.  {Bib.  Saa-a,  ApL,  i8go,  p.  joj.)  We  verily 
believe,  that,  were  it  not  for  the  prejudice  arising  from  the  fear  of  con- 
ceding any  corruption  in  the  Hebrew  text,  as  we  just  now  explained, 
there  would  be  at  once  a  general  acceptance  of  the  Septuagint  Chro- 
nology in  Gen.  v,  xi,  as  the  correct  report  of  the  Hebrew  original. 

'■'Augustine  says:  "  the  very  highest  respect  is  due  to  the  translators 
of  the  Lxx,  who,  as  the  better  informed  Christians  maintain,  translated 
under  such  an  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  all  were  of  one  and  the 
same  mind." 

"Julius  Pomeranius,  the  Catholic  bishop  of  Toledo,  did  not  hesitate, 
A.  D.  685,  to  demonstrate,  in  spite  of  the  already  authorized  vulgate, 
that  between  the  creation  and  Christ's  advent  6,000  years  had  inter- 
vened, and  that  especially  the  chronologj^  of  the  Septuagint  was  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  {Seyffcvth,  p.  138.)  "The  learned  Morinus 
contends  for  the  integrity  of  the  Sept.  He  shows  how  the  Bab.  and 
Jeru.  Talmuds  extol  the  Sept.,  mentioning  the  very  few  differences, 
but  none  on  the  early  chronology."     (Jackson.) 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  dl7 

PART  II. 

The  Chronology  of  Gen.   v,   xi. 

^  44.  In  an  essay  accompanying  this  (see  Part  III),*  we  show  the 
possibihty  that  the  primeval  man  was  a  race  physically  human,  before 
the  spiritually  human  Adam  began.  We  do  this  in  the  interest  of  the 
Bible  Chronology;  in  order  that  it  may  not  be  deemed  necessary  to 
quarrel  with  the  Scripture  datings,  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  a  sup- 
posed scientific  demand  for  a  greater  antiquity  of  man.  Some  Bible 
scholars  feel  anxious  to  forestall  objections  in  this  direction,  and  have 
thought  to  defend  the  book  from  dreaded  assault,  by  belittling  before- 
hand its  teaching  as  to  dates.  For  some  time  there  has  been  a  fashion 
of  treating  Bible  datings  as  unreliable  and  of  little  account.  And 
especially,  in  order  to  make  way  for  a  greater  allowable  antiquity  of 
Adam,  the  Scriptui-e  Chronological  tables  of  the  period  from  Adam  to 
Abraham,  as  contained  in  Gen.  v  and  xi,  have  been  urgently  called 
in  question.     These  tables  proceed  as  follows: 

Gen.  v:  3.  "And  Adam  lived  a  hundred  and  thirty  years,  and 
begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image,  and  called  his  name 
Seth.  And  the  days  of  Adam  after  he  begat  Seth  were  eight  hundred 
years;  and  he  begat  sons  and  daughters.  And  all  the  days  that  Adam 
lived  were  nine  hundred  and  thirty  years,  and  he  died.  And  Seth 
lived  a  hundred  and  five  years,  and  begat  Enos.  And  Seth  lived  after 
he  begat  Enos  eight  hundred  and  seven  years,  and  begat  sons  and 
daughters.  And  all  the  days  of  Seth  were  nine  hundred  and  twelve 
years,  and  he  died.  And  Enos  lived  ninety  years,  and  begat  Cainan.'' 
And  so  on,  through  the  /en.na.mes  to  the  flood,  and  the  /en  other 
names  to  (and  including)  Abram.  Thus  we  have  as  follows  the 
Bible's 


*Prof.  G.  Frederick  Wright,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  editor  of  the  Biblio- 
theca  Sacra,  June  29,  1893,  wrote  thus  of  these  two  Essays:  "I  have 
taken  pains  to  read  over,  in  connection  with  your  table  of  contents, 
the  two  Mss.  which  you  sent  me,  and  which  I  see  are  two  chapters  of 
your  great  work.  Permit  me  to  say,  that  I  have  the  highest  admira- 
tion of  your  faithfulness  in  pursuing  through  so  many  years  the  intri- 
cate lines  of  investigation  which  you  have  been  following,  and  an 
equal  admiration  for  the  clearness  of  your  style,  and  the  logical  char- 
acter of  your  arrangement  of  material.  The  two  Mss.  which  I  have  in 
hand  ought  to  be  published  in  the  Bibliotheca,  and  I  can  say  to  you 
positively,  that  if  you  will  let  them  remain  in  my  hands,  I  will  work 
them  into  the  January  and  April  numbers." 


318 


§  45-    First  Chronological  Table. 

1.  Adam      was  130  years  old,  when  to  Adam  was  born  Seth. 

-t-  800  =  930. 

2.  Seth         was  105  years  old,  when  to  Seth  was  born  Enos. 

+  807  =  912. 

3.  Enos         was  90  years  old,  when  to  Enos  was  born  Caman. 

+  815  =  905. 

4.  Cainan      was  70  years  old,  when  to  Cainan  was  born  Mahalael. 

+  840  =  910. 

5.  Mahalael  was  65  years  old,  when  to  Mahalael  was  born  Jared. 

+  830  =  895. 

6.  Jared        was  162  years  old,  when  to  Jared  was  born  Enoch. 

+  800  ==  962. 

7.  Enoch       was  65  years  old,  when  to  Enoch  was  born  Methusaleh. 

+  300  =  365. 

8.  Methn.    was  187  years  old,  when  to  Methu.  was  born  Lamech. 

+  782  =  969. 

9.  Lamech  was  182  years  old,  when  to  Lamech  was  born  Noah. 

+  595  =  777- 
10.     Noah       was  500  years  old,  when  to  Noah  was  born  Shem,  etc. 
+  450  =  950. 
Noah  +  100 

1656  years  at  the  flood. 

This  Chronological  table  contains  a  genealogical  list  (on  the  right 
hand):  "To  Adam  was  born  Seth,  to  Seth  was  born  Enos,"  etc. 
Such  genealogies  are  frequent  in  Scripture,  but  except  here  they  are 
without  any  Chronology  given  with  them.  Take  for  example  at  Mat. 
i:  7,  where  we  learn  that, — To  Solomon  was  born  Rehoboam,  to  Reho- 
boam  was  born  Abijah,  to  Abijah  was  born  Asa,  to  Asa  was  born  Je- 
hoshaphat,  to  Jehoshaphat  was  born  Joram,  to  Joram  was  born 
Uzziah,  to  Uzziah  was  born  Jotham,  etc.  Here  we  know,  that 
Uzziah  was  the  great-great-grandson  of  Joram  (II  Chron.  xxi:  16,  to 
xxvi:  i).  So  that,  there  are  three  generations  omitted  in  this  list;  and 
we  thus  learn,  that  in  a  mere  genealogical  list  "begat"  is  not  always 
followed  by  the  immediate  son,  but  sometimes  indicates  only  a  descend- 
ant born  to  the  before-named  person. 

\  46.  Such  an  omission  of  names  is  thus  seen  to  be  a  liability  in 
any  mere  genealogical  list  found  in  Scripture.  For  illustration:  In 
the  above  genealogical  list  contained  in  the  Chronological  table  of 
Gen.  V. — "To  Adam  was  born  Seth,  to  Seth  was  born  Enos,"  etc., 
there  might  possibly  be  names  omitted;  Seth  (for  example)  being  not 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  319 

the  son,  but  (say)  the  great  grandson  of  Adam;  and  Enos  being  not 
the  son  but  the  descendant  of  Seth,  and  so  on.  But  this  would  have 
no  effect  on  the  Chronology  of  the  table  containing  the  names.  Sup- 
pose that  when  Adam  was  70  years  old,  a  son  Alvah,  was  born,  and 
when  that  son  Alvah  was  60  years  old  his  son  Seth  was  born;  in  that 
case  a  name  (Alvah)  is  omitted  in  the  genealogy;  but  this  does  not 
change  the  chronological  fact  given  that  "Adam  was  130  years  old 
when  to  Adam  was  born  Seth."  All  the  variation  is,  that  in  such  case 
Seth  is  born  to  Adam,  not  as  a  son,  but  as  a  grandson  or  descendant. 
And  so  at  every  step  in  the  table. 

Omission  of  names  in  a  genealogy  can  not  affect  the  interval  of  time 
between  any .  two  names  giveri  consecutively.  Omission  of  7ia7nes  does 
not  change  date  numbers. 

The  interval  between  Adam's  birth  and  Seth's  birth  is  given  as 
"  130  years,"  and  the  interval  between  Seth's  birth  and  Enos'  birth  is 
given  as  "  105  years, "-making  235  years  of  Adam  at  Enos'  birth;  and 
no  insertion  of  omitted  names  will  change  this  length  of  time.  The 
Chronological  Table  given  here,  as  is  not  the  case  with  other  mere 
genealogical  lists,  fixes  the  duration  of  the  genealogy  contained  in  it. 
Yet,  evident  as  this  is,  attempts  have  been  made  to  invalidate  the 
chronology. 

§47.  "Some  have  supposed,  that  along  with  the  patriarchs 
named  their  races  and  peoples  are  meant  to  be  included;  Rosenmuller, 
Freidreich,  and  others  think  that  from  these  orally  transmitted  geneal- 
ogies many  names  had  fallen  out.  Hensler  holds  that 'the  expression 
'  year  '  denotes  among  the  patriarchs  lesser  spaces  of  time.  To  the 
first  supposition  is  opposed  the  definite  characterizing  of  single  per- 
sons; to  the  second  the  fact  that  in  the  same  manner  the  son  always 
follows  the  father;  to  the  third  the  constant  signification  of  the  year  as 
tropical."     (Lange  on  Gen.  v:  4.) 

Such  have  been  the  vain  endeavors  to  change  the  lengths  of  time  as 
given  in  Scripture.  But  the  more  recent  attempts  have 'sought  to  open 
the  way  for  lengthening  the  antiquity  of  man,  by  breaking  doion  the 
Bible  Chronology  (particularly  of  Gen.  v,  xi)  as  being  no  definite 
chronology  at  all. 

Two  notable  examples  of  such  endeavors  have  appeared  in  the  Bib- 
liotheca  Sacra;  the  earlier  in  April,  1873,  p.  323,  by  Prof.  Gardiner  of 
Middletown,  Conn.,  which  we  will  call  theory  A;  the  later  in  April, 
1890,  p.  285,  by  Prof.  Green,  of  Princeton,  N.  J.,  which  we  will  call 
theory  B. 

§  48.     The  Non-  Chronology  Theories. 

I.  Theory  A  gives  the  purpose  of  the  sacred  writer  as  not  chrono- 
logical, but  simply  this: 

"It  was  sought  to  record  two  facts  in  one — the  age  in  each  case  of 
commencing  paternity,  and  the  name  of  the  i)articular  son   by  whom 


^20  PERIOD    A,    B 

the  line  was  continued.  Thus  Seth,  e.  g.,  might  have  begun  to  be  a 
father  at  105,  but  might  have  actually  begotten  Enos  at  any  reasonable 
time  during  the  807  years  which  he  afterward  lived;  so  that  the  true 
meaning  of  the  text  would  be  shown  by  a  paraphrase  running  in  this 
wise:  '  Seth  lived  105  years,  and  begat  children,  among  whom  was 
Enos;  and  Seth  Hved  after  his  beginning  to  beget  children  807  years, 
and  begat  both  sons  and  daughters;  and  all  the  days  of  Seth  were  912 
years,  and  he  died.'  "     (P.  324.) 

That  is,  the  language  of  Genesis  is  supposed  to  mean:  "  Adam  was 
130  years  old  when  to  Adam  was  born  "  —  not  Seth,  as  it  says,  but— 
"some  unnamed  elder  brother  of  Seth!  "     And  so  on  through. 

I  49.  The  writer  concludes,  that  the  sum  of  the  ages  before  pater- 
nity (1056  years  to  Noah)  is  only  the  jninvmmt  length  of  time;  while 
the  actual  length  of  time  is  an  undetermined  quantity,  the  sum  of  any 
different  ages  of  the  several  parents,  each  taken  somewhere  between 
the  age  of  first  parentage  and  "a  reasonable  time  "  (say  100 years)  be- 
fore death  (except  in  Enoch's  case)  as  the  end  of  parentage. 

Thus,  the  total  ages  of  all  but  Noah  being  7625,  take  out  eight  loo's 
and  we  have  6825  years+600  years  of  Noah=7425  as  the  maximum 
number  of  years  possible  before  the  flood;  which,  with  the  minimum 
1656  (the  sum  of  the  birth  ages  given)  leave  us  a  range  of  (7425— 
i656=)5769  years;— "by  which  length  of  time  the  chronology,  on  this 
theory,  is  uncertain  and  variable,"  says  the  writer. 

In  the  same  way  he  works  out  a  possible  variation  of  "some  1500 
to  2000  years"  above  the  minumum  or  accepted  chronology  from  Shem 
to  Abram.  This  gives  him  a  possible  enlargement  of  the  Bible  chro- 
nology of  (say  5769+2000=)  some  7700  years,— using  the  Hebrew 
text. 

But  now  notice  the  insuperable  difficulties  of  this  scheme: 
?  50.  (i)  He  imagines  the  purpose  of  the  sacred  writer  to  be,  not 
to  give  chronology,  but  to  give  ' '  tHe  age  i7i  each  case  of  commenci?tg 
paternity."  And  he  gives  Seth  (at  the  second  step)  as  illustration. 
Why  did  he  not  give  us  Adam  (at  the  first  step)?  That  will  upset  his 
whole  theory!  Adam  was  the  father  of  Cain,  and  of  Abel,  and  of 
Cain's  wife  (?)  and  of  an  indefinite  number  of  people,  before  Seth  was 
born.  So  the  very  first  step  is  not  a  case  of  "commencing  paternity  "; 
which  proves  that  the  writer  had  no  such  purpose  as  alleged,— and 
the  whole  scheme  is  nipped  in  the  bud  without  further  words.  How 
irrational  to  suppose  an  exact  minimum  dating  carefully  given,  and 
also  a.?na.\-imu)n  dating,  but  the  real  date  suppressed!  And  how  intol- 
erable the  claim,  that  when  Scripture  reads,  "  And  Seth  lived  after  he 
begat  Enos  807  years,  "—it  means,  ' '  And  Seth  lived  after  his  beginnittg 
to  beget  children  (long  before  Enos)  807  years  "  ! 

(2)  The  theory  well  owns,  that  the  purpose  of  the  sacred  writer 
must  be  "in  each  case  "  to  give  "  the  name  of  the  particular  son  l>y 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  331 

whom  the  hue  was  continued."  But  it  has  to  be  conceded,  that  the 
particular  son  Seth  was  born  at  the  very  date  ghien  (130  years  of 
Adam),  as  pre-asserted  at  Gen.  iv:  25,  26;  and  that  to  Noah  a  particu- 
lar son  named  was  born  at  the  very  date  given  (500  years  of  Noah),  as 
made  sure  by  Gen.  xi:  10.  The  cases,  at  the  beginning  of  both  lists, 
prove  the  method  of  the  whole  series,  and  show  (what  the  language 
itself  retiuires)  that  in  every  case  the  particular  son  is  named  as  being 
born  at  the  particular  time  stated.  There  could  be  no  ob/eetiu  specify- 
ing the  time,  except  to  show  the  date  when  that  individual  was  born. 

(3)  No  case  can  be  found  in  Scripture  to  warrant  the  theory. 
When  a  date  is  given  with  the  birth  of  a  son  (or  descendant),  it  always  is 
and  must  be  the  date  of  that  very  mentioned  person's  birth.  So  Gen, 
xxi:  5,  and  xxv:  26,  etc.  Nor  is  Gen.  v:32,  an  exception.  "And  Noah  was 
500  years  old;  and  Noah  begat  Shem,  Ham  and  Japheth;"  /.  e.,  one  of 
the  three  named  was  born  at  the  date  named,  and  the  other  names  are 
mentioned  on  account  of  their  importance  in  peopling  the  new  world. 
Again,  Gen.  xi:  26,  "  Terah  lived  seventy  years,  and  begat  Abram, 
Nahor,  and  Haran;"  where  the  names  are  probably  inverted,  because 
of  Abram's  prominence  in  the  history,  though  the  Samaritan  text 
gives  Abram's  birth  as  the  particular  one  meant  at  Terah's  70  years. 
/n  no  case  is  the  birtJi-date  given  of  a  person  im-nained,  as  the  theory 
wrongly  alleges. 

g  51.  (4)  The  great  fault  of  the  theory  is,  that  while  conceding  ten 
definite  dates  limited  to  ten  definite  generations,  it  denies  all  definite 
dating  results;  thus  leaving  ;/('  adequate  niotii'e  for  giving  the  dates. 
The  chronology  of  this  distinct  Chronological  Table  is  thus  annulled, 
as  if  it  were  a  mere  genealogical  list  of  names,  which  it  is  not.  No 
wonder  it  has  been  thoughtthat  a  new  attempt  must  be  made;  namely, 

II.  Theory  B.  This  theory  cuts  loose  from  all  limit  of  genera- 
tions, supposing  not  one  but  any  number  of  generations  for  each  of 
the  ten  dates  given.  In  other  words,  it  does  not  confine  the  un-named 
births  (supposed  after  each  given  date)  to  the  single  parent  named, 
but  imagines  them  as  successive  generations  extending  on  indefinitely 
any  number  of  years;  till  the  last  member  of  that  race  (or  dynasty)  is 
taken  as  the  next  name  given  in  the  list,  wherewith  to  begin  a  new 
race.  It  is  as  if  the  record  read  thus:  '"And  Adam  lived  130  yeai^s, 
and  begat  (an  ancestor  of)  Seth;  and  Seth  lived  105  years,  and  begat 
(an  ancestor  of)  Enos,"  etc. 

And  thus  the  language  of  Genesis  is  interpreted  as  if  meaning: 
"  Adam  was  130  years  old  when  to  Adam  was  born  "" — not  the  descend- 
ant Seth,  as  it  says,  but- — "  some  un-named  son  who  was  an  ances- 
tor to  Seth  !  "  And  so  on  through.  Notice  that  the  difficulties  here 
are  still  inSujierahle. 

^  52.  (i)  The  chronology  is  tlius  broken  U]i  coui])letely.  The 
very  puri)use  of   the   writing   as   an    evident    Chronological    Table   is 


322  PERIOD    A,    B 

ignored  and  denied,  and  it  is  treated  as  a  me7-e  genealogical  list  like 
those  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  which  it  plainly  is  not.  We  have 
already  shown  (above),  that  the  supposition  or  assertion  of  omitted 
7ianies  in  a  Chronological  Table  with  definite  dates,  will  not  and  can 
not  affect  those  dates.  The  ancestor's  ages  will  remain,  as  given, 
whether  it  be  the  naine  of  a  son,  or  of  a  grand-son,  or  of  any  more 
remote  descendant,  assigned  to  that  date. 

There  is  no  getting  round  this  fundamental  defect  of  the  theory. 
The  "  begat  "  indicates  tlic  birth  of  tJic  person  named  after  it;  and  the 
date  of  that  birth  being  given,  it  matters  not  how  many  un-named 
generations  intervene.  The  cln'onology  is  fixed  and  unchanged.  No 
such  anomaly  is  known  in  Scripture,  or  in  reason,  as  a  dating  given 
to  an  Jin-named  ancest07-'s  birth.  The  chronology  here  added  to  the 
genealogy  forbids  any  such  fast-and-loose  play  upon  omissions. 

§  53.  (2)  This  theory  takes  away  all  puj-pose  on  the  part  of  the 
sacred  writer  in  giving  the  birth -dates  he  has  so  carefully  arranged. 
The  author  of  the  theory  thus  describes  what  he  considers  the  only 
design  of  the  statements  in  Genesis: 

"They  merely  afford  us  a  conspectus  of  individual  lives.  And  for 
this  reason  doubtless  they  are  recorded.  They  exhibit  in  these 
selected  examples  the  original  term  of  human  life.  They  show  what 
it  was  in  the  ages  before  the  flood.  They  show  how  it  was  afterward 
gradually  narrowed  down.  But  in  order  do  to  this  it  was  not  necessary 
that  every  individual  should  be  named  in  the  line  from  Adam  to  Noah 
and  from  Noah  to  Abraham,  nor  anything  approaching  it.  A  series 
of  specimen  lives,  with  the  appropriate  numbers  attached,  was  all 
that  was  required.  And,  so  far  as  appears,  this  is  all  that  has  been 
furnished  us."  (Page   297.) 

Now,  if  this  had  been  the  sole  design,  the  account  in  Genesis  would 
certainly  have  run  simply  somewhat  thus:  "  And  Adam  lived  930 
years,  and  he  died.  And  his  descendant  Seth  lived  912  years,  and  he 
died,"  etc.  There  is  no  possible  reason  for  putting  in  besides,  at 
every  stage,  a  double  date,  before  and  after  the  birtli  of  each  successor, 
— except  by  this  means  to  give  the  successive  dates  or  chronology  of  the 
whole  series.  Mere  "  specimen  lives  "  are  given,  we  are  told.  How 
was  Seth's  life  made  a  specimen  life  by  putting  the  next  specimen 
(Enos)  as  beginning  at  Seth's  105th  year  ?  And  so  through.  It  is 
plainly  a  consecutive  interlocked  series.  The  theory  before  us  rules 
out  entirely  all  chronological  intent  on  the  part  of  the  sacred  writer, 
and  so  makes  utterly  idle  and  senseless  two-thirds  of  all  the  numbers 
so  carefully  given. 

\  54.  On  the  other  hand,  our  current  reasonable  view  of  the  pass- 
age adds  to  that  simple  design  of  giving  life-lengths  the  higher  purpose 
of  giving  dates  and  lengths  of  duration,  which  required  the  assertion 
also  of  the  age  of  par'entage  in  each  case.     And  then,  in  the  first  table 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  323 

(ch.  v),  were  inserted  the  ages  after  parentage,  to  be  for  us  an  admira- 
ble proof  through  all  time  (by  addition)  that  there  is  no  error  or  cor- 
ruption by  mistake  in  any  of  the  numbers. 

This  pj'oof -pin-pose  is  so  evident  that  all  scholars  now  are  by  this 
means  aware  that  variations  here  in  the  Septuagint  and  Samaritan 
texts  can  not  be  mistakes,  but  must  have  come  from  designed  change. 
Could  there  be  any  method  devised  to  show  more  conclusively  than 
does  this  multiplying  and  interlocking  of  dates  that  the  purpose  of  the 
historian  was  strictly  chronological?  and  that  too  with  uncommon  ex- 
actness of  reckoning? 

If  this  be  not  chronology  then  there  can  be  no  chronology.  No 
mode  of  speech  could  be  contrived  to  give  successive  dates  to  Bible 
generations  if  those  tables  in  Genesis  be  denied  as  such.  It  surely  is 
undesirable  to  reduce  the  carefully  elaborated  reckonings  of  Gen.  v  and 
xi  to  a  mere  jargon  of  senseless  and  purposeless  verbiage,  as  the  theory 
proposes  to  do.  No  reverent  reader  wishes  to  regard  this,  or  any  por- 
tion of  God's  inspired  word,  as  such  a  comparatively  useless  mass  of 
inflated  speech.  A  straining  of  interpretation,  so  far-fetched  and 
forced,  against  the  obvious  meaning,  would  open  the  door  to  an  ex- 
plaining away  of  almost  anything  in  Scripture. 

§  55-  (3)  The  theory  has  no  support  in  any  of  the  surroundings  of 
the  Scripture  in  question.  The  author  of  the  theory  thinks  the  birth- 
ages  are  not  meant  to  be  added  together,  because  the  writer  of  Genesis 
has  not  himself  added  them  up.  So,  the  birth-dates  of  Abram,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob  as  "  sojourners  in  Canaan,"  (viz.,  loo — 75,  60,  and  130,  in 
Gen.  xii:  4,  and  xxi:  5,  and  xxv:  26,  and  xlvii:  g),  are  nowhere  summed 
up;  yet  we  just  as  certainly  know  that  the  amount  was  215  years  from 
Abram's  reaching  to  Jacob's  leaving  Canaan.  Revelation  was  not  given 
to  do  all  our  thinking  for  us,  but  it  always  leaves  enough  untold  to  task 
our  study,  and  lead  us  to  "search  the  Scriptures."  But  the  theor}- 
tells  us:  "  So  far  as  the  biblical  records  go  we  are  without  any  data 
whateiicr,  which  can  be  brought  into  comparison  with  these  genealo- 
gies ■"  (of  Genesis)  for  the  purpose  of  testing  their  continuity  and  com- 
pleteness. (P.  295.)  On  the  contrary,  see  Jude  14,  "And  Enoch  also, 
the  seventh  from  Adam,  prophesied."  This  certainly  means  ''the 
seventh  individnal  or generatio>i  from  Adam,  not  the  seventh  dynasty 
or  race. 

There  is  really  but  one  sum  total  of  years  in  the  Old  Testament, 
the  "  430  years  "  of  Ex.  xii:  40;  where  the  sum  Jiad  to  be  given,  as 
there  were  no  items  given  from  which  to  compute  it;  and  this  shows 
how  certain  was  the  Scripture  purpose  to  give  a.  complete  chjviio/ogy. 
The  "480th  year  "  found  in  I  Kings  vi:  i,  is  no  doubt  an  interpolation, 
as  all  the  facts  concerning  it  go  to  prove.  (See  here  Period  D,  §  i,  21.) 
Paul  in  Acts  xiii:  17-22,  as  well  as  the  Book  of  Judges,  have  supplied 
the  lack  by  a  statement  of  the  items.     The  full  giving  of  all  needed 


324  PERIOD    A,    B 

items  in  Genesis,  according  to  Bible  usage,  precluded  the  giving  of 
totals  there. 

The  genealogy  given  at  Ex.  vi:  16-20,  is  cited  as  favoring  the  theory 
before  us;  but  it  is  decidedly  against  it.  There  the  plain  intent  was  not 
chronology,  but  mere  genealogy;  and  therefore  only  the  life-lengths 
were  given,  (137,  133,  137),  which  can  furnish  no  dating;  so  that  the  total 
covering  the  period  had  to  be  given  (as  at  xii:  40).  •  But  at  Gen.  v,  xi, 
no  total  being  furnished,  the  successive  items  or  birth-datings  had  to 
be  inserted  in  addition  to  the  life-lengths,  in  order  to  give  the  chronol- 
ogy. In  Exodus  there  are  no  such  birth-dates,  and  so  no  chronology. 
In  Genesis  the  given  birth  dates  make  the  genealogy  into  a  complete 
chronological  table,  needing  no  total  given.  Nothing  could  demon- 
strate more  plainly  than  this  comparison  the  complete  difference  be- 
tween the  chronology  in  Genesis  and  the  mere  genealogies  found  else- 
where. Thus  we  see  the  futility  of  trying  to  rule  out  chronology  from 
Gen.  V,  xi,  because  it  is  not  found  in  other  genealogies. 

§  56.  (4)  The  objections  2  and  3  to  the  other  theory.  A,  are  just  as 
forcible  against  this.     (Read  them  over.) 

(5)  The  theory  is  contradicted  by  facts  and  circumstances  named  in 
the  account.  There  are,  indeed,  births  to  Adam  before  that  of  Seth, 
which  shows  it  to  be  no  purpose  of  these  birth-dates  to  give  the  age  of 
beginning  paternity;  so  that  they  have  no  purpose  whatever  in  this 
theory,  and  such  previous  births'omitted  can  not  affect  the  chronology 
as  we  have  seen.  But  the  birth  of  Seth  was  certainly  the  birth  of 
a  son,  and  not  of  a  remote  descendant  of  that  name.  For  beforehand 
(at  iv:  25)  we  learn  that  he  was  born  to  Eve  herself  who  hei^self 
also  named  him  "  Seth,"  the  appointed  seed  in  place  of  her  own 
son  Abel.  The  same  is  shown  (at  vei".  26)  concerning  the  next 
descendant  Enos,  who  was  namedhy  Seth  himself  as  his  own  "  son," 
not  a  remote  descendant.  And  again  Shem  was  the  immediate  son  of 
Noah;  and  Peleg  was  the  immediate  son  of  Eber,  for  another  son  was 
"his  brother"  (x:  25).  Moreover,  at  every  step  in  ch.  v,  xi,  the  after- 
life  of  each  parent  is  expi^essly  said  to  be  "after""  the  birth  of 
the  persons  named,  as  being  a  son,  not  a  remote  successor.  Everv- 
thing  indicates  that  the  individuals  are  consecutive. 

§  57.  It  is  urged,  that  these  lists  are  too  ai'tificial  to  be  an  exact 
account  of  all  the  names  or  generations  included;  for,  it  is  said,  there 
are  just  ten  steps  in  each  list,  with  triple  names  at  the  close  of  each. 
But  when  you  take  Shem  and  his  brothers  as  the  last  step,  the  first 
list  (to  the  flood)  has  11  steps,  and  the  second  list  (after  Shem  and  the 
flood)  has  but  9  steps  (in  the  Hebrew)  including  Abram  and  his  broth- 
ers. So  that,  the  alleged  artificiality  is  wanting;  and  Peleg,  "the 
divider,"  does  not  artificially  divide  the  list  in  the  middle,  as  claimed, 
'•  In  the  number  ten  there  is  in  truth  a  symbolical  significance';  but  a 
symbolical  number  is  not  on  that  account  a  mythical  [or  an  unreliable] 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  325 

munbcr,"  says  Laiif;e  concerning  the  ten  antediluvians.  Snch  trifling 
objections  can  not  overturn  tlie  clearly  marked  chronology  of  these 
Scripture  tables. 

The  author  of  theory  B  thinks,  that  the  Septuagint  version  made  in 
the  3d  century  B.  C.  purposely  changed  the  numbers  from  the  Hebrew 
text,  vet  had  no  idea  of  those  numbers  as  containing  any  chronologv 
in  them.  But,  to  show  that  such  an  absence  of  chronology  from  the 
views  then  held  concerning  the  subject  could  not  exist,  we  cite  the 
Jewish  historians  Demetrius  (B.  C.  220)  and  Eujiolemns  (B.  C.  174); 
both  of  whom  use  that  longer  reckoning  of  the  I^xx  (so  soon  after  its 
issue  in  that  version),  and  both  of  whom  emjiloy  it  as  giving  the  chro- 
nology or  age  of  the  world  down  to  their  day,  viz.,  "5147  years  from 
creation  to  Ptolemy  Soter,  B.  C.  290."  {Cliroii.  Aiiticj.,  by  John  Jackson, 
175^-) 

;i  58.     The  Ri:srLT. 

We  have  thus  shown,  that  the  non-chronology  theories  of  Gen. 
v,  xi,  both  theory  A  and  theory  B,  are  untenable.  The  grand  error 
of  both  theories  is  in  detaching  the  birth-dates  given  from  the  off- 
spring to  whcjm  the\'  are  applied,  for  which  no  Scripture  and  no  rational 
excuse  can  be  found.  Theory  A  transfers  the  given  birth-date  to  an 
rider  hroilwr  <){  the  person  named;  theory  B  transfers  the  given  birth- 
date  to  a  mnotc  ancestor  oi  the  person  named.  As  l)oth  these  devices 
are  unscrijitural  and  irrational,  the  result  is,  that  we  are  shut  up  to 
the  Bible  Chronology  as  to  the  antiquity  of  Adam  and  Eve  in  Eden. 

The  Hebrew,  the  Septuagint,  and  the  Samaritan  text,  all  give  dif- 
ferent lengths  of  time  for  the  two  periods,  the  antediluvian  and  the 
postdiluvian,  contained  in  the  two  chapters.  The  birth  of  Abraham 
being,  by  the  Usher  reckoning.  B.  C.  1996,  or  by  the  later,  more  relia- 
ble reckoning,  B.  C.  2096,  we  have  the  values  as  follows: 


I5irth   Abram.   P..  C. 
Period  B, 

Hebrew. 

2096 

35^ 

Samaritan. 
2096 
942 

Septuagint. 
2096 
1232 

The  Elood,         B.  C. 
Peri(jd  A, 

2448 
1656 

303« 

1307 

4345 

3328 
2262 

The  Creation,    B.  C. 

4104 

5590 

and  some,  therefore,  ])ut  this  as 
instead  of  the  352  or  60  years  more 
lefinite  and  certain  here,  as  elsc- 
(jcn.  xi:  32,  through  xii:  4,  in  the 
•vision,  reads  thus:  "And  the  days  of  Terah  were  two  hundred 
nd   five  years:   and  Terah   died  in   Haran.     Now  the  Lord  said  unto 


('.en.  xi:  1 

:o-2fi.  adds  uyi  zgz  vi^ar 

the  interval  1 

to  the  birth  of  Abraham 

here  given. 

But  tile   .^cri|)ture   is 

whei'e,  gen(^i 

lally,  in  its  chronology. 

■{2(i  PERIOD    A,     H 

Abrani,  Get  thee  out  of  thy  conntrv.  "■•■  ""■  ••'  So  Ahkam  \vi;nt,  as 
the  Lord  had  spoken  unto  him:  and  Lot  went  ^ith  him:  and  Ahram 
was  seventy-five  years  old  when  he  departed  ont  of  Haran."  and  came 
to  Canaan.  (  '•  Now  the  Lord  had  said  unto  Abram,"  etc..  xii:  i.  is  an 
error  of  the  King  James  version.)     See  'i  2,  note. 

We  are  expressly  told  that  Abram  was  seventy -fi\c  years  old,  7i'//r// 
Jiis  father  Jiad  died  aged  20^:  so  that  Abram  was  born  when  his  father 
Terah  was  130  years  old.  And  this  130  j-eai's  of  Terah  gives  the  352 
years  after  the  flood,  not  the  292.  The  New  Testament  asserts  the 
same  date.  Acts  vii:  4.  "  From  thence  [Haran]  ivhen  his  father  iva^ 
4iead.  he  removed  him  [Abram]  to  this  land.'"  So  that  this  date  is  cer- 
tain. And  Gen.  xi:  26,  does  not  contradict  this;  for  the  three  sons  of 
Terah.  \'\z.,  Abram,  Nahor  and  Haran,  were  certainly  not  all  born  at 
vtiee,  at  Terah"s  70  years;  and  Abram  is  named  first,  not  because  first- 
Jwrn,  but  because  most  prominent  in  the  history. 

Haran  was  probably  born  first,  as  he  died  first;  and  Abram  was 
doubtless  born  last,  at  Terah"s  130  years,  as  just  now  found.  The 
only  ntlier  similar  case,  of  a  father  and  three  sons  named,  is  treated  by 
the  writer  just  this  way.  Gen.  \:  ^z:  "And  Noah  was  500  vears  old; 
■and  Noah  l)egat  Sliem.  Ham  and  Japheth."  Here  Shem  is  named 
first,  because  -the  juost  prominent  in  the  history,  although  he  was  not 
first-born  of  the  three,  since  Noah  was  502  years  old  (not  500)  at  his 
birtlu  as  Ave  learn  from  vii:  6,  and  xi:  10.  How  careful  is  Scripture  thus 
to  give  us  exact  and  sure  datings  in  every  case.  e\  en  w  lien  to  a  casual 
view  there  might  seem  to  be  ambiguity. 

S  59.  We  are  persuaded  that  all  ancient  history  can  be  brought 
within  the  duration  thus  given  by  the  Bible,  if  not  iu  tlie  Hebrew,  at 
least  in  tlie  Sejituagint  copy,  with  its  3328  years  B.  C.  back  to  the 
flood.  Or.  if  the  flood  were  not  nni\ersal,  then  we  should  ha\e  5590 
years  back  to  the  creation,  or  4104  even  in  the  Hebrew  text.  The 
question  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint  texts,  as  to  which 
is  correct,  is  by  no  means  decided,  the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  Septuff- 
gint being  at  least  equal  to  that  on  the  other  side.     (See  Part  L  J5  29.) 

Some  archaeologists  have  ascribed  to  the  ancient  Egyptian  civiliza- 
tion a  very  great  antiquity;  but  later  research  has  inclined  to  a  more 
sober  view.  "Egyptian  history  involves  the  date  of  the  earliest  his- 
torical ejjoch  of  man.  "••"  ""  *•'  The  epoch  of  Menes  is  the  first  point 
in  the  chrtmology  of  the  history  of  ancient  Egj'pt,  and  has  been  placed 
by  Le]isius  B.  C.  3892,  by  Bunsen  3643,  by  Poole  2717.  by  Nolan  2673 
B.C."'  [Chambers'  Cye.)  "With  Menes,  the  first  known  human  king 
•of  Egypt,  the  historical  times  of  Egypt  commenced,  according  to  that 
ingennotts  and  profound  writer  Ciorres.  2712  years  before  tlie  Cliristian 
•era.'"     y.l7ithon\s  Clas.  Die.) 

"  We  have  the  Eponyon  Canon,  and  also  a  "  synchronistic  history' 
■s)^  Assyria  and  Babylon  covering  about  B.  C.  1450 — 850     *    ■••'     *     The 


DIUNtAN    CHK()Nt)LOGV  327 

farliest  Assyrian  ruler  known  to  us  is  in  B.  C.  1850.  About  2100  B.  C. 
an  energetic  native  ruler  f^ained  the  chief  ])o\ver,  and  made  Babylon 
the  seat  of  his  government.  ■■•  '••"  "'  B.  C.  2500  or  even  3000  is  proba- 
bly well  within  the  truth  as  the  time  of  the  beginning  of  Shemitic 
<;l()minion  in  I\Ies()]X)tamia."'     {Die.  of  Relio-.  Kuowl.) 

The  Hebrew  Bible  has  the  confounding  of  language  at  Babel  as 
about  2300  B.  C:  the  Septuagint  has  it  about  2800  B.  C.  "Ninus  and 
Semiramis  are  to  be  considered  as  mere  inventions  of  Greek  writers. 
The  earliest  known  king  of  Assyria  is  Bel-lush,  about  1273  B.  C." 
( Cliainbi'rs'  Cyc. ) 

,i;6o.  We  thus  see,  that  the  Bible  Chronology  will  amply  cover  all 
the  demands  of  authentic  history,  as  really  known  or  to  be  known; 
so  that  there  is  no  necessity  or  excuse  for  discarding  the  chron'olog}'  of 
Gen.  \-  and  xi. 


PART   III. 


Primeval 

M 

AN 

|AV/, 

'iut  Jr, 

>,i,  th,^ 

mi'lwth.xa 

.S',; 

,;•„, 

./»/; 

'..   /^?9^-l 

t; 

6: 

t.     The 

Hel 

)rew 

Bibk 

■   fixes  tht 

'    1' 

.lar 

iiig 

of  Ada 

III 

ill 

Eden 

at 

:)I 

It 

4(XJ0  _\-e 

ars  1 

before 

the 

Christian 

er 

■a. 

Th 

le  currei 

lit 

Us 

he'r  ch 

ro- 

nology  has  it  4004  years:  but  the  most  reliable  reckoning  of  the  Hebrew 
increases  it  to  4104  years.  So  that  6000  years  from  Adam  expire  in  A. 
D.  1897.  This  expiration,  within  a  few  years  from  now,  oi  tJie  six  week 
davs  of  human  history  (since  "one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand 
years."  2  Pet.  iii:  8),  is  drawing  some  attention  to  the  speedy  opening 
of  the  seventh  thousand  years,  or  Sabbatic  day  of  human  historv,  as  a 
su])posed  )}iillcniiial  epoch  described  in  Revelation  xx:  1-7. 

But  in  a  different  quarter  there  is  an  awakened  interest  in  the  scien- 
tific (pu'stion:  How  are  we  to  reconcile  so  short  a  period  of  human 
existence  as  the  six  thousand  years  of  Hebrew  chronologv,  now  about 
cx])iring,  with  the  accumulating  geologic  facts,  which  go  to  show,  by 
liuman  fossils  and  relics  of  human  handiwork,  that  man  has  existed  on 
the  earth  much  more  than  six  thousand  years  ?  The  Septuagint,  or 
earliest  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  translated  from  the  He- 
brew about  200  B.  C,  allows  some  fifteen  hundred  years  more  than 
tile  six  thousand;  but  this  is  thought  not  sufficient  for  the  geologic  de- 
iiuinds.     What  iiiorc  can  be  done  about  it  ? 

Ill  order  U)  /o>rs/a//  this  alleged  difficulty  of  science,  some  biblical 
scliohirs  arc'  trying  to  invalidate  the  early  chronology  of  the  Bible, 
from  Adam  to  .Xbraliam.  as  given  in  Cieiu'sis  v  and  xi;-'  so  as,  b\-  having 
?io  liible  cliro)ioloo;y  of  early  times,  to  allow  science  full  sweep  for 
speculation  as  to  the  antiquity  of  man.     (Part  H.) 

*  See  the  P>ibliothe(a  Sacra  for  A|)ril,  1S75,  l^p.  323-331:  .'Xpril,  rSqo, 
I'P-  -''"^S  3"J- 


328  PERIOD    A,    B 

?  62.  The  present  writer  is  fully  convinced  that  these  endeavors 
to  do  away  with  the  Bible  chronology  can  not  succeed;  and,  further, 
does  not  entertain  the  apprehension  that  any  greater  antiquity  for 
man  than  the  Bible  chronology  allows,  will  be  positively  proved  liy 
science;  so  that  he  does  not  feel  that  need  of  "hedging"  (to  use  a  term 
current  in  worldly  business),  in  behalf  of  the  Bible,  which  is  stirring 
many  scholars.  For  we  believe  that  the  geologists  of  our  day  are 
somewhat  infatuated  with  the  idea  f/iat  they  kno7v  tJie  rate  with  which 
nature's  changes  proceeded  in  prehistoric  times.  Whereas,  we  ha\e 
no  witnesses  (except  God)  to  testif}^  at  what  an  amazing  pace  \ast  de- 
velopments might  leap  forward  in  the  young  gush  of  nature  under  new 
conditions.^ — such  developments  as  require  ages  under  the  settled  envi- 
ronment of  the  present. 

Nevertheless  we  ai^e  ready,  in  our  life-long  research  of  Scripture, 
to  lend  a  helping  hand  to  those  that  feel  it  needful  to  be  prepared 
against  any  emergency,  with  ti»ie  enough  on  hand  to  allow  modern 
science  full  sweep  in  its  venturesome  theorizing.  It  can  do  no  barm  to 
be  fore-armed,  even  though  we  expect  modern  science  to  grow  more 
sober  and  modest  as  it  increases  in  age:  it  may  finalh'  withdraw  its 
challenge  against  God's  testimony  as  to  the  time  of  his  own  handi- 
work, at  least  in  jtrimeval  eras,  where  there  is  no  other  witness  to 
speak.  Yet  we  are  the  more  willing  to  aid  in  discovering  time  enough 
.f<jr  every  exigency,  in  harmony  with  God's  word,  in  order  to  check  (if 
possible)  the  present  tendency  to  undervalue  and  undermine  the  chron- 
nolog}'  of  the  Bible,  which  we  consider  one  of  the  main  liulwarks  of  its 
strength. 

OiR  Method. 

jj  63.  What,  then,  is  our  method  of  finding  time  enough  for  all  geo- 
logic emergencies  without  impairing  ita  the  least  the  Bible  chronology  ? 
We  find  the  ample  time  desired  in  the  very  place  where  reverent  geology 
has  all  along  been  finding  it — not  within  the  Adamic  limit  of  Bible 
chronology,  but  before  that  Adamic  limit  (at  the  garden  of  Eden) 
begins,  in  the  .sv'.r /////;/r^W7/;7v/ (^('(fj'.v  of  ci'eation.  It  is  now  universally 
allowed  that  there  is  time  enough  in  those  six  untimed  periods  to  meet 
all  the  demands  of  geology.  Each  "day"  may  be  thousands  of  years 
in  length;  and  the  "  sixth  day  "  may  be  as  long  as  any  day  before  it. 
And  the  last  half  of  the  sixth  day.  wherein  tnan  was  being  C7-eated,  from 
his  physical  manhood  on  to  his  full  spii"itual  manhood  in  Eden,  may 
have  occupied  many  thousands  of  years,  with  successive  generations 
of  incipient,  decaying,  physical  men,  befoi-e  the  completed  spiritual 
Adam  emerged  (for  aught  the  Bible  contains),  if  science  should  insist 
on  claiming  human  fossils  so  old  as  that. 

In  short,  our  claim  is,  that  Gen.  i:  27,  may  cover  any  amount  of  time 
that  the  discovered  facts  of  human  palfeontology  may  recjuire. 


niLUVIAX    CHRONOLOGV  329 

?  64.  All  advocates  of  tlie  evolution  theory  will  at  once  accept  this 
view.  And  they  are  welcome  to  find,  if  they  can,  their  needed  "  miss- 
ins;  links  ■'  among  the  fossils  of  that  palaeolithic  age  of  unfinished  physi- 
cal man  which  we  here  concede  to  have  possibly  existed.  But  we  our- 
selves reject  the  idea  of  a  long  evolutionary  process,  and  hold  to  imme- 
diate creation,  in  only  two  steps;  first,  the  physical  or  animal  man; 
and  second,  the  spiritual  or  godlike  man — with  an  undefined  length  of 
time  between — as  recorded  in  Genesis  (i:  27:  ii.  7). 

It  was  all  in  "  the  sixth  day"  of  creation.  But  the  himian  body  or 
physical  being  may  have  been  "created"  at  mid-day:  and  the  inbreath- 
ing of  the  higher  divine  spirit,  whereby  the  individual  Adam  became 
"  a  living  soul '"  complete,  may  have  been  at  the  close  of  the  day:  with 
possibly  many  generations  of  time  and  physical  prt)pagation  between, 
as  intimated  at  the  start.     (See  i:  27.  28.) 

That  man  at  first  was  mortal,  like  other  creatures,  giving  oppor- 
tunity for  human  fossils  in  that  pre-Eden  era.  is  rendered  (]uite  plaus- 
ible by  the  fact,  that  it  was  not  till  after  the  completed  Adam  appeared 
(ii:  7).  that  an  Eden-enclosure  was  fitted  up  for  him  (ver.  8-15),  and  a 
"  tree  of  life  '"  furnished  to  him.  as  if  to  guard  him  from  outside  perils 
and  to  keep  him  from  a  mortality  before  inevitable.  When  he  sinned, 
he  lost  the  '•  tree  of  life"  which  had  saved  him  from  death,  and  fell 
back  to  the  outside  reign  of  mortality. 

Of  course,  any  attempt  to  explain  the  particulars  of  such  an  unac- 
customed view  must  be  of  the  nature  of  hypothesis.  And  while  we 
venture  to  name  a  few  points  of  conjecture,  and  our  reasons  for  them. 
^ve  want  to  be  understood  as  only  theorizing,  not  giving  positive 
o])inions  or  doctrines  to  be  maintained  either  by  ourselves  or  others. 
Mere  Scri])ture  theory  here  serves  to  offset  the  mere  geologic  theory 
calling  f(ir  it.  I^et  us  trv.  then,  to  answer  hypothetically  two  or  three 
(juestiiins  that  will  at  (mce  be  asked. 

5;  65.     Unitv  of  the  Race. 

I.  If  a  race  of  men,  physically  such,  existed  for  generations  long 
before  the  perfected  spirital  man  Adam,  what  became  of  that  race, 
when  •■  the  first  man  Adam" — the  first  complete  man — began?  Must 
they  not  still  survive  ?  and  does  not  this  necessitate  a  denial  of  tJie 
unity  oftlirliunian  race.''  By  no  means,  we  answer.  If  God  so  chose, 
he  could  readily  bring  about  an  extinction  of  all  else  of  that  race  at 
about  the  close  of  the  sixth  day,  when  he  used  the  individual  Adam  for 
development  into  a  new  race.  And  this  could  occur  as  simply  and  as 
natura!l\-  as  in  jjrcvious  extinctions  of  s])ecies,  which  all  geology 
teaches,  whether  at  tlie  "evenings"  following  the  "mornings"  of 
creation,  or  at  other  jioints  of  time. 

In  A.  1).  1655,  tlu'  French  scholar  Pevrerius  broached  the  theorv  of 


;}30  PEKIDD    A,     B 

"  Preadamite  Man.""  But  that  view  made  the  preadamites  to  he  our 
still  surviving  human  race  complete  as  we  are  now;  while  Adam  and 
his  family  were  regarded  as  merely  the  selected  Jewish  race,  preserved 
afterward  in  part  from  the  flood,  which  was  looked  upon  as  only  a 
limited  disaster  confined  to  the  Jewish  or  Adamic  family.  Such  a 
crude  theory  we  of  course  utterly  repudiate.  Our  hypothesis  is.  on  the 
conti-ary,  that  of  an  extinct  prehistoric  race,  physically  but  not  s])irit- 
nally  human,  and  only  namable  as  preadamite  man  in  the  sense, 
that  they  were  the  unfinished  race  of  men — the  bodily  mold  for  our 
humanity,  which  mold  was  lirotcrn  (so  to  speak),  in  the  conuuon 
fate  of  other  lost  fossil  species,  when  the  consummated  ]ierfect  Adam 
was  reached.* 

?  66.  There  is  nothing  contrary  to  reason  or  to  science  in  the  claim 
of  such  a  loss  of  an  imperfect  human  species.  Indeed,  the  indications 
of  geology  suggest  t^vo  stages  of  advancement  in  the  most  ancient 
Innnan  fossils  discovered.  Says  Professor  G.  F.  Wright,  in  iheBib/io- 
thcca  Sacra: \  "Between  the  polished-stone  period  (or  Neolithic, 
according  to  Lu])bock"s  classification)  and  the  Paheolithic  period,  or 
the  period  in  which  flint  implements  show  no  signs  of  having  been 
ground,  there  is  a  wide  separation,  which  no  student  of  the  subject  can 
fail  to  i^ecognize  as  of  great  significance.  It  is  the  evidence  of  the  great 
antiquity  of  the  Palaeolithic  period  that  now  attracts  the  princii^al 
attention  of  students  of  this  subject."  Moreover,  the  certainty 
that  there  was  some  cataclysm  or  crisis  extinguishing  species  between 
the  earlier,  or  Palaeolithic,  and  the  later,  or  Neolithic,  age  of  human 
remains,  appears  from  the  geologic  fact  mentioned  by  the  same  writer, 
thus: — 

"The  explorations  by  a  committee  of  scientific  men — of  whom  Mr. 
Evans  and  Sir  John  Lubbock  are  members— of.  aun)ng  others.  Kent's 
cavern,  in  Torquay,  England,  fully  substantiate  the  evidence  that  had 
been  before  adduced  in  proof  of  the  fact  that  the  cave  was  inhabited  by 
men  of  the  Pahtolithic  period,  at  a  time  when  the  mannnoth   (clcplias 


"  If  any  one,  accepting  our  hypothesis  in  general,  should  proceed  to 
imagine  that  some  at  least  of  the  primeval  imi^erfect  race  may  have 
survived,  and  furnished  the  much-niquired-after  7a(fc  of  Cain  in  the 
"land  of  Nod"  (Gen.  iv:  i6,  17),  as  well  as  ihe  "daughters  of  men" 
]Mit  in  contrast  with  the  Adamic  "  sons  of  God,"  producing  "giants  " 
bodily,  and  monsters  morally  (as  told  in  vi:  1-4):— such  a  speculation  is 
of  no  practical  account,  since  the  /^//zwr.wr/ flood  (vii:  21-23)  soon  swept 
away  all  races  except  a  i^emnant  from  Adam  and  Eve.  Not  until  scien- 
tific research  shall  have  positively  found  some  human  race  actually 
without  a  conscience  or  spirit-soul,  can  any  question  be  raised  against 
the  presumption  of  nnii'ersal  extinction  for  all  humanity  save  the 
family  of  Noah, 
t  Ai)ril.  1873.  p.  382. 


IMI,l\IAN  CHKONOLOGV  331 

pn'i/u'i^r/iii/s).  the  wooly  rhinoceros,  the  cave  bear,  the  cave  hvena, 
the  reindeer,  and  many  t)ther  extinct  gigantic  nianunaHa,  abounded  in 
England.  These  remains  are  separated  from  later  species  and  more 
lecent  marks  of  man's  presence  above  them  by  a  continuous  layer  of 
stalagmite,  from  one  to  three  feet  thick:  and  bones  of  existing  sjiecies 
are  conspicuous  for  their  absence  from  the  lower  deposit. "" 

;i  67.  Now,  since  ^•arious  other  species  of  animals  Ix-canu-  extinct 
after  man  in  some  condition  was  present,  as  seen  by  the  Pahoilithic 
fossils:  there  is  no  reason  known  why  the  then-existent  species  of 
animal  man  may  not  also  have  become  extinct,  between  the  Pal:eolithic 
and  the  Neolithic  age,  that  is,  at  the  end  of  the  "sixth  day,"' — being; 
succeeded  by  the  now-existent  and  newly  created  m*  perfected  human 
race  of  Adam,  the  fossils  of  which  are  those  found  in  the  new.  or  Neo- 
lithic, age  of  geology.  Our  view  of  the  "'six  days"  of  creation  as 
actual  days  oi  "light'"  followed  by  actna/  /tit^/tfs  o{  "darkness"  (their 
length  being  luidefined).  will  corroborate  this  view,  of  darkness  (and 
consequent  crisis  in  nature)  as  following  "the  sixth  day." 

Nor  is  there  wanting  in  the  Bible  narrative  some  intimation  of  a 
]wssible  cataclysm  or  crisis  in  creation  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  day,  as 
well  as  of  the  previous  days.  Aftcj-ihe  full  perfecting  of  Adam  (at  iiry)^ 
and  the  establishing  of  Adam  in  the  Eden  fitted  up  for  him  (at  ii:  y-17). 
we  are  next  told  (at  ver.  18-20).  "  And  the  Lord  God  said.  It  is  not  good 
that  man  should  be  alone:  I  will  make  him  a  helpmeet  for  hiui.  And 
out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God  formed  every  beast  of  the  field,  and 
•every  fowl  of  the  air,  and  l)n)ught  'them  unto  Adam,  to  see  what  he 
would  call  them.  "'■■  -  -  And  Adam  gave  names  to  all  cattle.  *  *  *" 
Hut  for  Adam  there  was  not  found  an  helpmeet  for  him."  Hei'e  are 
two  singular  points  given,  which  need  to  be  accounted  for. 

Ji  68.  (I)  x\n  iiitcr7'aloftimc  between  the  existence  and  action  of  the 
complete  Adam,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  strange  originating  of  Eve, 
-on  the  other  hand.  Whereas,  the  earlier  account  (at  i:  27.  28)  repre- 
sents the  creation  of  male  and  female  as  if  simultaneous,  with  an  imme- 
diate direction  for  propagating  the  race.  This  seeming  discrepancy  is 
at  once  adjusted,  if  we  suppose  that  the  sexes  of  the  imperfected  man  at 
once  existed  and  propagated  as  in  chapter  i.,  which  is  according  to  the 
teachings  of  natural  science;  but  that  after  a  time,  at  the  close  of  the 
sixth  day,  some  crisis  obliterated  the  unperfected  race, — except  that 
the  physical  form  of  one  drowned  individual  was  jirovidentiallv  rescued 
and  used  for  ])crfccting  a  new  ami  complete  humanitw  as  in  tlu-  second 
clia])ter. 

In  this  \iew.  clia]).  i:  26  28,  is  ;i 
its  cxecutitjn  sininiicti  up  as  a  luliolc 
and  bring  out  the  Sabbath  institnti 
second  exhibit  of  the  executed  ])h 
tlic  sixth  (lav's  work):  tiie  creation  c 


rst  exiiibit 

of  the  di\ine  f>[ari  an 

so  as  to  CO 

nijilete  the  "  six  days 

(ii:  I    J),  w 

hile  chap.  ii.  4  25,  is 

witli   t'nllc 

■r  details  (es]H'cially  ( 

nan  bcin,;; 

sliow  n  in  its  tico  stir<;; 

332  PERIOD    A,    H 

at  ver.  7.  and  the  new  and  strange  production  of  woman  bein^  shown 
afterward  (as  a  necessity  of  the  race  extinction),  coming  in  the  '"deep 
sleep  ■'  that  naturall)^  closed  the  sixtli  day  of  creation.* 

This  view  is  not  affected,  whether  we  consider  the  two  chapters  as 
two  'different  documents  used  by  the  writer  (Moses),  or  as  merely  two 
recitals..— one  in  general,  the  other  in  detail— prepared  by  one  and  the 
same  writer.  But  such  a  view  as  presented  by  our  theory  throws  light 
on  the  peculiar  and  non-scientific  creation  of  Eve,  which  has  always 
])uzzled  students  of  the  Bible.  Only  a  sinolc  Jniinanbody  was  recoverec] 
from  the  extinct  human  race,  as  the  man-form  which  God  had 
"formed" — through  undefined  lapse  of  time — "from  the  dust  of  the 
ground  ""—this  being  the  record  of  a  first  stage  given  at  ver.  7.  And 
this  one  human  form,  when  perfected  into  Adam,  seems  to  have  con- 
tained the  elements  of  both  sexes:  so  that  woman  came  forth  by  sep- 
aration, not  by  simultaneous  double  creation,  as  at  the  start  (in  chap.  i). 
Perhaps  the  anomalous  re-creation  of  Adam  required  this  anomalous 
non-scientific  evolution  of  sex.- 

^  69.  (2)  A  second  difficulty  in  the  account  is  the  fact  that  at  ii:  ig, 
/;/  the  midst  oi  divine  planning  as  to  a  needed  "helpmeet"  for  man, 
(begun  at  ver.  18  and  continued  to  the  close  of  ver.  20),  we  have  the 
statement:  "And  out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God  formed  every  beast 
<jf  the  field,"  etc— as  if  here  came  in  the  creation  of  animals,  afte7-\h& 
completed  formation  of  man  in  ver.  7.  This  looks  like  a  contradiction 
'of  chap,  i,  which  finishes  the  creation  of  animals  before  the  creation 
of  man.  But  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  has  a  different  reading,-- 
"the  Lord  God  once  more  formed  every  beast,"  etc.  So  also,  the 
Septuagint  has  "en,"  still  ox  yet  fnrthrr  formed.  As  if  there  had  been 
a  crisis  t)r  wasting  of  animals,  now  followed  by  a  new  furnishing  of 
sjiecies  here  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  day.  However,  this  is  not 
decisive:  for,  instead  of  the  Samaritan  reading,  we  may  suppose  that 
our  Revisers  should  have  translated  the  Hebrew  as  ?i pluperfect,  "had 
formed,"  as  in  ver.  8. 

The  striking  feature  here  is,  that  the  interposed  an-aying  of  all  the 
animals  in  sight  of  Adam,  for  him  to  inspect  and  to  name,  was  evi- 

]■•' Gen.  ii:  2.  says:  "And  on  the  seventh  day  God  ended  his  work 
which  he  had  made."  The  Samaritan  copv  avoids  this  seeming  dis- 
crepancy by  reading  here  "  on  the  sixth  day."  But  may  it  not  rather 
be  true,  W\iXthe  work  of  creation  ended  with  the  sixth  day  at  ii:  7,  with 
t  lie  work  of  providence  going  on  the  se\'enth  day  through  chap,  ii:  (as  it 
-still  goes  on);  so  that,  the  furnishing  of  the  Eden  residence,  the 
instructions  given  to  Adam,  and  the  providing  of  a  helpmeet  (which 
items  finish  up  that  chapter),  were  indeed  a  providential  ending  on  the 
•seventh  day  of  the  created  work  of  the  sixth  day?  If  so,  man's  first 
day  of  life  being  the  seventh  day  of  creation,  the  first  day  of  Adam  and 
Eve  together  was  the  eighth  day,  or  the  first  day  of  a  new  week. 


I)II.l"\IAN    fHKt).\OLOGV  .  333 

tlently  meant  to  convince  Adam  tliat  tliere  was  no  creature  to  be  found 
as  a  fit  companion  to  him.  This  review  and  naming  of  creatures  is  be- 
gun by  God's  statement,  '"It  is  not  good  that  the  man  should  be 
alone:  I  will  make  him  an  helpmeet  for  him.""  And  it  closes  with  this 
statement.  "'Adam  gave  names  to  all  "•■  ••  ■•  but  for  Adam  there 
\\?i?,  not  foiind  an  helpmeet  for  him.""  Whereupon.  God  jiroceeds  at 
once  to  the  formation  of  Eve.  In  view  of  this  acctiunt,  how  plausible 
the  idea  that  God,  having  chosen  for  completion  but  one  individual 
from  a  perished  race,  thought  best  to  impress  upon  this  perfected 
individual  the  fact  that  he  was  the  sole  survivor  of  his  kind,  and  that 
onlv  Sovereign  Power  could  give  him  a  suitable  mate,  as  he  saw  that 
all  other  creatures  had.  This  then  is  a  rational  ground  for  the 
hvpothesis  of  a  perished  race,  as  here  presented.  * 

^   70.        I'rRTHER    Ol'EKIKS. 

I.  Another  (piestiou  ma^•  be  asked.  Is  not  our  theory  inconsistent 
with  I  Cor.  xv:  45  (Revision),  "■  And  so  it  is  written,  the  first  man 
Adam  became  a  living  soul?"  We  reply:  He  who  when  finished 
"  BECAME  a  living  s(ki1."  was  indeed  "  the  first  man  Adam"  complete. 
The  I)ible  was  given  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  our  present  historical 
human  race:  and  it  knows  nothing  and  cares  nothing  about  pre- 
existent  races.  Our  theory  does  not  pretend  to  be  Scripture  teaching; 
it  is  extra-biblical,  and  only  asks  to  be  received  as  not  forbidden  by  the 
Scriptures.  As  to  Gen.  \:  \,  z.  it  is  certainly  true,  that  God  called 
their  name  Adam  in  the  day  when  thev  were  cre.\ted;"  namely,  in 
the  sixth  day  wlierein  both  s/ai^es  of  their  creation  were  completed. 

If  any  one  should  deem  our  theory  too  great  a  modification  of  the 
current  litei'al  understanding  of  Adam  and  Eve's  creation,  we  would 
simply  suggest — that  the  other  scheme,  for  lengthening  the  antiquity 
of  man  by  destroying  the  Chronology  of  Genesis,  looks  far  moi-e  like  a 
wresting  of  Scri]iture.  and  a  lending  of  its  plain  import  in  cha]is.  v  and 
xi.  than  anything  here  jiroposed  concerning  the  account  of  double 
formation  in  cha]is.  i,  ii. 

3.  There  is  a  still  further  (|uestion:  Since  the  primeval  man  is 
here  treated  as  a  mere  unfinished  or  animal  race,  before  the  fii^st  com- 
jilete  man  Adam  existed,  could  the  primeval  creature  be  rightly  called 
■"man"?  No,  we  answer,  not  in  the  biblical  sense,  as  denoting  the 
l)resent  race  of  morally  accountable  beings,  possessed  of  a  s])irit  from 
God  as  wc-Il  asabotlx-  from  the  dust.      But  for  the  uses  of  geology,  and 


*  •"  Adam  was  created,  and  his  w  ife  in  his  side,  and  (afterward)  he 
showed  herto  him." — Book  of  Jubilees,  A.  D.  lot).  ■  "  Thaf  is,  shewas 
created  at  the  same  time  with  Adam,  but  in  and  within  him,  and  it  was 
onlv  afterward  that  she  became  a  separate  creature."  —  Professor 
Schodde,  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra  (Jaimarv,  1886),  p.  58. 


'V.i4  PERIOD    A,     H 

in  the  discussion  of  fossils  as  indicating  the  age  of  races  and  of  species, 
the  title  "man"'  applies  simplj^  to  the  physical  creature  of  that  struc- 
ture, with  no  great  capacity  required.  And  in  the  sense  of  words  as 
used  by  modern  science,  no  higher  than  ///(■  /u'o/ii'sf  (inhiia/  WAinrc  is 
recjuisite  to  express  the  geological  status  of  man.  For.  animal  intel- 
ligence in  its  fullest  development  greatly  resembles  human  thought. 

'i  71.  Indeed,  many  of  our  most  distinguished  scientists  are  agnos- 
tics and  sceptics,  denying  that  man  has  any  higher  or  spirit  nature,  or 
that  he  is  anything  more  than],the  highest  species  of  the  animal  races. 
Of  course,  all  such  tliinkers  must  regard  the  unfinished  primeval  man 
that  we  speak  of  as  being  full  manhood  com]ilete;  with  no  new  creation 
or  new  nature  given  to  Adam,  but  only  an  evolutidu  of  primeval 
faculty.  With  such  unbelievers  we  can  have  no  contention.  If  ///rr 
lun-e  not  been  able  to  find  out  that  they  have  a  sj)irit-soul.  ;uk1  insist 
on  ranking  themselves  as  merely  the  highest  grade  of  animals,  tliey  ])ut 
their  oi'igin  just  where  we  put  it — in  the  times  of  the  earliest  lunnan- 
like  fossils:  and  our  theory  remains  unimpaired. 

We  simply  add  to  their  inaterialistic  view  oiu^  spiritualistic  biblical 
doctrine;  declaring,  as  in  Job  (xx.xii:  8).  "But  there, is  a  spirit  in 
MAN,  and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty  hath  given  them  understanding." 
And  we  see  this  higher  bestowment  amiounced  in  Gen.  ii:  7.  as  ///<•  src- 
o/iif sfat^r  o{  human  creation: — "and  (Cc//)  breaihrd  into  liis  nostrils 
tlw  b7ratJi  of  life,  and  man  hiicamh  a  living  soul""  in  God's  image,  no 
longer  merely  human  Imt  also  divine.  The  perfect  man  is  lixfer  than 
the  first  formed  physical  hmnanity;  and,  according  to  the  theory  here 
broached,  there  may  have  been  a  long  interval  between. 

Our  view  is  exactly  the  scientific  view;*  only  we  carr}-  the  develop- 
ment a  step  farther  on,  and  insist  that  ever  since  Adam  (if  not  always 
before)  man  has  a  soul  as  well  as  a  body,  a  .spirit-substance  as  well  as 
a  matter-substance.  And  we  are  sure  that  whatever  physical  human- 
ity may  have  existed  before  Adam,  it  was  with  the  finished  Adam  and 
Eve  of  the  Bible  that  accountable  liitiiiaii  spirits  began. 

"Prof.  Agissiz  suggested  this  very  view.  See  Bib.  Sacra.  Jan., 
1868,  p.  197. 


DILI  MAN    CHRONOLOGY  335 

PART  IV. 

History  and  Prophecy. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Age  of  the  World. 


'i  72.     Bv  the  clironulo^y  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  we  have  as  follows: 
Pre-diluvian  (A)=i656  yrs.     (Usher  same.) 

Post-diluvian  (B)=  352  yrs.     (Usher  same.) 

Total    to   birtli    Ab.=2oo8 
Birth  of  Abram  (C  i<  17)  2096  B.  C.   (Usher— 100.) 

Total  (A— E.)=4io4  B.  C.     (U,sher  4004.) 

From     6000  yrs. =1897  A.  D. 

Foi-R  Views  Compared. 

Clin-  Good- 

L'sJicr.  toil.  Elliott,  enow. 

Dihivian 2008  200S  2008  2008 

To  the  Exodus 505  505  505  505 

To  4th  Solomon 480th  612  580th       580 

To  2nd  Darius 492  493  516  491 

To  A.  D 520  520  520  520 

Total  B.  C 4004        4138         4128        4104 

I'rom 6000 yrs  6000        6000        6000 

A.  D 1977         1863         1873         1897 

Here  are  given  the  UKJst  a])proved  views  of  the  Hebrew  reckoning.'* 
Wliich  is  right  ?  All  agree  down  to  the  Exodus,  and  after  the  2d  of 
Darius;  the  only  divergence  is  in  the  two  periods  preceding  and  fol- 
lowing the  4th  of  Solomon.  After  the  4th  of  Solomon  Usher  is  nearest 
right,  though  he  has  a  year  too  much  (having  all  thrown  back  a  year 
h\  Nebuchadnezzar's  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  put  at  B.  C.  588 
instead  of  the  correct  587.)  We  have  shown  that  Solomon begaubuild- 
ing  the  temple  in  the  spring  of  B.  C.  loii,  a  sabbatic  year  ending  the 
next  September,  and  that  he  dedicated  it  8^  years  afterw  ;uxl,  at  the 
])lovving  of  the  jubilee  truni])c't  in  September  of  B.  C.  kx)3.      Usher  has 

"••That  of  Archbishop  Usher  set  forth  A.  D.  1650;  that  of  Clinton,  of 
Oxford,  A.  D.  1845,  in  his  Fas.  Rom.  and  Fax.  Ht'l..  and  that  of  Ellii>tt 
still  later. 


33G  PERIOD    A,    B 

the  dedication  at  the  beginning  of  the  sabbatic.  Oct.,  B.  C.  1004,  and 
the  founding  in  the  4th  of  Solomon  he  puts  8>^  years  before  in  the 
spring  of  B,  C.  1012.  (Josephus  in  his  "War'"  has  it  B.  C.  loii.  vary- 
ing to  loio  in  his  "  Antiquities."') 

^  73.  But  the  interval  thence  back  to  the  Exodus  is  evidently  more 
correct  as  given  by  Elliott,  viz.,  579  years  (rather  580  years),  just  as  St. 
Paul  makes  it  in  Ac.  xiii:  18,  22  (see  D  ?  i),  which  is  given  as  "480th 
year  "in  our  pi^esent  copies  of  I  Ki.  vi:  i,  as  Usher  uses  it.  We  have 
elsewhere  shown  (D  §  63),  how  the  true  580  years  by  mistake  got  inter- 
preted into  612  (in  Josephus)  as  Clinton  puts  it,  and  how  it  finally  got 
abridged  into  '•480th,"  as  used  by  Usher.  This  present  reading 
(480th)  may  be  not  so  much  a  corruption  as  a  misunderstood  text.  It 
may  mean  "  The  480th  year  of  reco7'ded  reigns,'"  with  100  years  of  odi- 
ous and  ignored  foreign  oppressions  left  out.     (D  \  73.) 

So  then.  Elliott's  chronology  is  correct,  with  the  exception  of 
the  period  betweed  the  two  temples.  This  sie  yeai"s  is  25  years  more 
than  the  correct  491.  And  it  is  plain  to  see  how  he  gets  this  error. 
He  puts  70  years  of  captivity  between  Nebuchadnezzar's  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  and  the  Cyrus  decree  for  rebuilding,"  whereas  there  were 
certainly  not  over  51  years  (B.  C.  587-536).  Here  is  an  excess  of  19 
years,  carrying  his  capture  of  Samaria  from  B.  C.  720  to  739.  Then 
by  merely  adding  the  reigns  in  Judah,  without  allowing  for  6  years  of 
joint  reign  (the  certainty  of  which  we  have  shown.  Period  E,  §  23),  he 
has  Solomon's  death  six  years  more  too  early,  or  (19-1-6=)  25  excess  iu 
all,  making  516  instead  of  491. 

I  74.  We  thus  see  that  most  certain! \-  the  Hebrew  chronology  of 
the  Bible  has  not  4004  years,  as  in  Usher,  but  4104  years  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  era.  Whence  it  follows  that  the  6000th  year  of 
the  world's  history  will  come,  according  to  the  Hebrew  Scripture,  in 
A.  D.  1896-7.  For  4104-1-1896=6000  A.  M.  (With  Solomon  given  but 
39  years  alone,  as  in  Josephus,  the  6000 years  run  out  in  A.  D.  1897, 
giving  him  full  40  years,  it  is  1896.) 

2.     By  the  Septlagint. 
^  75.     By  the  Greek  chronology  of  the  Lxx,  we  have. 

L.xx.o/Eu'seb.     Of  Jose fih  lis.        Coyrcifcd.      rat/can. 

Antediluvian  (A)  =  2242  yrs.     2256  2262  2242 

Post-diluvian  (B)  =  942  yrs.       992  --1132  1172 

Total  to  birth  Ah.  ==    3184  3248  3394  3414 

Birtii  of  Abra.  (C.  ^i  17)  =  2096  B.  C.  2096  B.  C.    2096  B.  C.  2096  B.  C. 

Total.  B.  C.  52S0  5344  5490  5510 

From         7000  7000  7000  7000    . 

A.  D.  1720  1656  1510  1490  A.  D. 

■"  The  very  error  ascribed  to  Josephus  (Rest,  of  Jos.,  ^  36.) 


niLUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  3^7 

Here  Joseplms  corrected  will  have  for  A  2262  of  Demetrius;  and 
will  have  for  B  1132,  made  up  of  his  992 — his  extra  50  on  Nahor  -f-  130 
for  Cainan  (in  agreement  with  Luke  iii:  36)  +  60  before  Abraham's 
birth  (which  we  adopt  from  Usher,  as  required  by  Ac.  vii:  4)  =  total 
1 132.  The  Vatican  Lxx  above,  with  its  2242  enlarged  to  2262,  gives  H. 
C.  5510,  and  has  its  7000  ending  A.  D.  1490. 

^  76.  J?:wisH  Chkonologv.  The  modern  Jewish  Chronology  is  a 
fabrication,  giving  no  true  idea  of  the  age  of  the  world.  It  goes  thus: 
To  the  flood  1656,  to  Abraham's  birth  290,  to  the  Exodus  505,  to  tlie 
temple  480th  year,  to  its  destruction  410,  then  the  captivity  70,  then 
40  to  the  Selencic  era,  then  311  to  the  Christian  era  =  total  3761  B.  C. 
Hence,  the  year  1S93  A.  D.  they  call  (3761  -{-  1893)  5654  A.  M.-- 

Look  at  the  progress  of  Jewish  corruption  in  their  chronology.  Jo- 
sephus  gives  their  original  view,  drawn  from  the  numbers  of  the  Lxx, 
which  he  claims  to  get  from  his  "  Hcbrt"ii>  Scriptures,""  [Pre/,  to  Anfiq., 
'i  3,  and  Ap.  /.  /o,  I'ff.),  viz.:  that  the  sci'iptures  "contain  in  them  the 
history  of  5000  years,"'  /.  <".,  from  the  creation  tothe  time  of  Nehemiah 
with  whom  the  Old  Testament  ends.  Philo  confirms  the  same  view; 
and,  down  to  that  New  Testament  age  and  afterward,  we  find  no  trace 
of  any  other  or  shorter  reckoning  (like  our  modern  Hebrew)  known  liv 
anybody  either  among  Jews  or  Christians. 

'i  77.  But  presently,  the  tlicoiy  came  in,  that  the  5000  years  reached 
down  to  the  Maccabees,  put  as  B.  C.  161.  with  the  previous  Persian 
]ieriod  (of  which  they  were  very  ignorant)  reduced  to  suit  this  reckon- 
ing. This  made  them  have  (5000 -j- 161  =  )  5161  years  B.  C.  Then, 
when  the  Christians  claimed  full  5500  years  as  properly  completed 
down  to  the  last  days  of  the  Messiah  (as  the  Friday  morning  of  the 
World's  Week),  the  Jews,  in  order  to  oppose  their  claim,  and  to  argue 
that  the  world  was  not  so  old,  and  the  time  for  Messiah  had  not  yet 
arrived,  boldly  dropped  1400  years  (by  single  hundreds  changed  in 
])eriods  A  and  B,  so  it  is  claimed),  reducing  their  5161  to  3761  B.  C. 
(See  l  27.) 

This  modern  Jewish  chi^onology  was  originated  by  Kabbi  Akiba  in 
A.  D.  130:  and  it  has  (70-1-404-3 ii+6g=)490  years,  /.  c,  the  "  seventy 
weeks  "   of   Daniel,  reaching  from  the  Nebuchadnezzar  to  the  Titus 


■••■  Some  give  the  290  as  292,  then  the  505,  then  the  480th  as  full  480. 
Then  the  410 -f-  70  =  480  also;  then  the  40  -|-  311  ==  351  is  ])ut  as  352  or 
40 -|- 312  (/.  e.,  246  to  Aristobulus'  royalty  -f  106)  to  the  Christian  era. 
(See  in  Prideaux,  yr.  486;  and  Hales;  and  Jrwis/i  Calendar,  Montreal.) 
Nicholas'  Chron.  of  Hist,  gives  the  total  as  3760X  years  B.  C.  Hales 
says  the  Rabbi's  have  3740  to  3616.  The  Talmud  Chron.  Table  (Lon- 
don, 5636)  gives  Titus'  triumph  in  A.  M.  3828,  which — 69  =  3759  vrs. 
B.  C. 


3:{8  PERIOD    A,     P. 

desti'uction  of  Jerusalem.  And  moreover,  their  new  A.  M.  (3761+69=) 
3830  for  the  latter  event,  enabled  them  to  claim  yet  (4000 — 3830=)  170 
3-ears  before  the  Messiah  was  likely  to  come  after  even  4000  years  of 
the  world's  age.  See  here  unfolded  the  spuriousness  of  the  later  Jew- 
ish figuring,  and  the  probability  that  that  people,  in  their  hostility  to 
the  Christian  Messiah,  are  responsible  for  the  clashing  between  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Greek  chronology. 

TJtc  End  of  6000  Years. 

g  78.  The  current  belief  of  the  earl_\-  Christian  church,  that  the 
world's  week  of  duration  was  t(j  last  6000  years,  when  a  Sabbatic  1000 
years  would  be  ushered  in.  grew  in  part  out  of  Re\-.  xx:  4-7,  where  the 
"  thousand  years  "  ;/«'//(?;/////;/ is  described.  It  was  corroborated  by 
II  Pet.  iii:  8,  where,  speaking  of  "  the  day  of  judgment,"  the  apostle 
assures  us  that  "one  da}'  is  with  the  Loixl  as- a  thousand  years, 
and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day."  Also  Psa.  xc:  4,  "A  thousand 
years  in  thy  sight  are  but  as  yesterday  when  it  is  past."     (See  ^  13.) 

The  Creation  Week  was  thus  regarded  as  a  t3'pe  of  the  creation's 
duration,  and  God's  rest  on  the  7th  day  as  a  tyi)e  of  Messiah's  reign, 
when  "the  stone  which  the  builders  refused"  should  become  "'the 
head  of  tlie  corner."  "This  is  the  day  (they  said)  Tt'/z/V// ///(•  Loi'd 
lutili  made;  we  will  rejoice  and  be  glad  in  it."  (Psa.  cxviii:  22-24.) 
There  may  lie  something  in  this  view  of  thousand-year  periods  in  his- 
tory; and  with  all  of  us  an  interest  attaches  to  the  date  when  6000 
years  expire,  although  we  may  not  be  able  to  determine  just  what  event 
in  human  development  belongs  at  that  point. 

\  79.  Notice  that,  by  the  Septuagint  chronology,  with  the  two  earlier 
dates  for  the  end  of  7000  3'ears  (as  given  here  at  g  75),  viz.,  A.  D.  1490 
(or  -70)  and  1510,  we  have  a  suggestion  of  the  thousand-year  theorj-  of 
the  early  church  (as  above)  in  a  somewhat  modified  form.  Having  the 
birth  of  Christ  (as  they  did)  at  about  5500  years  from  the  Creation  (as 
if  on  Friday  morning  of  the  Woi'ld's  Week), — let  us,  instead  of  putting 
the  consummation  at  6000  years  (as  they  thought,  /.  c,  as  if  at  Friday 
night  of  the  World's  Week) — let  us  put  it  at  7500  (/.  e.,  as  if  on  the 
Sunday  nwrning  of  a  new,  resurrection  World-Age).  Then  7000  }'ears 
or  about  A.  D.  1500  bring  us  down  to  the  Saturday  night  of  Creation, 
w  hen  the  evening  of  a  Millenial  Sunday  commences  with  the  discovery 
of  a  "new  world"  and  the  "reformation"  of  the  old;  to  be  followed 
after  about  500  years  by  the  dawn  of  the  Lord's  Day  morning  of  Crea- 
tion. This  is  the  new  Sabbath  of  a  renewed' earth,  overtopping  (for  an 
indefinite  time)  the  old  Sabbatarian  reckoning;  as  was  typified  by  our 
I^ord's  resurrection  on  the  8th  day.  following  the  finished  week  and 
buried  Sabbath  of  the  law. 


DII.rVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  :{3!.> 

?  So.  In  this  view,  tlie  period  from  E,t;ypt  to  the  Temple  (about 
A.  M.  4000  to  4500)  was  the  ••evening  ""  preceding  the  Hebrew  day  of 
royalty.  And  the  period  from  the  Exile  to  the  Christian  Era  (about 
5500 1  was  the  evening  preceding  the  gospel  morning,  which  reached  to 
.A.  D.  5011.  And  the  period  from  popery  begun  to  pojoery  fullv  fixed 
(about  6000  to  6500  or  A.  D.  500  to  1000)  was  the  e\cning  of  a  "•  dark 
age"  continuing  500  years  more  (to  about  7000  or  A.  D.  1500.)  While 
the  period  from  the  Reformation  (7000  to  7500  or  A.  D.  1500  to  2000)  is 
the  ••evening""  of  a  millenial  '•morning."'  to  da\\n  at  7500  A.  M.  (or 
about  A.  D.  2o<m.  and  to  continue  througli  "a  thousand  \-ears  of 
indeterminate  length."" 

Notice  how  many  grand  events  centered  ai^ound  the  epoch  1500  A. 
D.  here  pointed  out  as  the  world's  Saturday  evening: — The'discovery 
of  the  ■■  new  world.""  A.  D.  1492  and  the  years  following  (so  close  to 
the  1490-1  of  the  Vatican  Lxx  noted  above:) — the  establishment  of  the 
inquisition  in  Spain  (A.  D.  14811  and  the  birth  of  Luther  (A.  D.  14S3) 
to  begin  the  reformati<jn: — and  just  before,  the  in\ention  of  jn-inting 
(A.  D,  I447I-  ciiid  the  end  of  the  eastern  Roman  empire  (A,  D.  1453), 
in  prejiaration  for  those  other  great  events.  The  present  500  years 
(fi'om  A.  D.  1500  to  2000)  are  certainly  the  adTanchii^  qxco^  a  more  re- 
s])lendent  day  now  near  at  hand. 

'0.  81.  There  is  a  modification  of  the  6000-year  idea,  which  it  may  be 
well  to  mention. 

Suppose  a  '•thousand  years  ""  prophetic  to  bepurj)osely  ambiguous, 
because -it  was  \\o\.  for  ihcin  in  those  eai'ly  days  '•to  know  the  times 
and  the  seasons:"'  and  supjxjse  the  expression  is  found  (as  the  end  ap- 
]iroaches)  to  mean  ti^'CJity-fnu-  jitbilt'c  periods,  or  two  and-a-half  times 
the  •"seventy  weeks""  of  Daniel.  /.  c.  (4gox2,'2=4gx25=)  i225vears. 
If  this  be  the  length  of  each  day  of  the  woi1d"s  week,  then  the  six  davs 
will  be  out  in  (1225x6^)  7350  A.  M..  instead  of  6000 years.  Now,  if  the 
Period  H  (after  the  flood)  in  Joseplius  be  corrected  from  his  "992 
yi'ars""  to  1102  years  l)y  adding  the  50  years  more  to  Nalmr  which  are 
found  in  the  Vatican  cojiy  of  the  Lxx  (see  here.  Part  I.  ''/.  31.  note) 
and  also  adding  tlie  60  vears"  correction  before  AbrahauTs  birth 
winch  we  ado]it  from  Usher,  (see  Part  I.  i>  2.  note). —  then  we 
shall  have  from  Josejjhus  corrected  (Cainan  not  being  inserted). 
Ptriotl  .A.  2256  years -f-  Period  B.  1102  years -j- ^096  B.  C.  for  Abra- 
ham's birth  =  total  5454  1].  C.  which  taken  from  the  whole  7350 
years  (composing  the  six  world  days)  =  1897  A.  D..— the  same  as 
reached  by  the  6  times  rkk)  years  of  the  Hebrew  chronology. 

i  82.  Two  of  these  world  days,  or  50  jubilees,  or  2450  years,  niinus 
one  jubilee,  are  2401  years;  which  is  the  squan'  of  the  jubilee  ])eriod, 
49  vears.  or  the  4th  power  of  the  sacred  number  7.  Singularly  enough, 
the  intt'r\  al   between  A.  D.  1897.   and  the  time  when   Daniel   had  tlie 


340  FHRIOn    A,    K 

vision  pointing  to  it  (in  chap,  vii:  ver.  25),  viz.  B.  C.  554. ""'  is  just  twiv 
of  these  world-day  periods  of  1225,  /.  <-.,  2450  years  (or  exactly  oiir-third 
of  the  world's  time)  from  B.  C.  554  to  A.  D.  1897. f 

Another  curious  fact  is,  that  this  1225  years  solar  equals  1260  years 
IiiJiar,  each  lunar  year  being  taken  roughly  as  355  daj-s  (which  Schwartz 
informs  us  was  the  reckoning  of  the  Romans  in  their  old  lunar  calen- 
dar), t  So  that  (1260-1225  =)  35  years,  or  a  loss  of  one  whole  Jewish 
"generation  "  (See  period  D,  \  10,  notes),  left  just  (1225-^35=)  35  gen- 
erations in  the  interval,  or  (6  times  35=)  210  generations  in  6  such  inter- 
vals, /.  i\  (210  times  35  =)  7350  years  of  history  in  all. 

^83.  Thus  the  "1260  daj-s "  of  Scripture  (or  "42  months,"  or 
"time,  times,  and  a  half,")  may  designate  1260  /nnar  years,  as  equal 
the  1225  so'lar  years  before  us  (or  25  Jubilee  periods);  each  of  these  1225 
vear  intervals  being  a  world-day  of  human  history  shortened, — as  Christ 
said  (Matt,  xxiv:  22),"  for  the  elect's  sake  those  days  shall  be  shortened." 

These  world-days  (and  half  days)  will  date  thus: 

B.  C.   5454  Creation. 

4842  Cainan  12  3'ears  old. 

Enoch  103  years  old. 

3617  Noah  182  years  old. 

Arphaxad  57  years  old. 

2392  Nahor  13  years  old. 

Jacob  died  1791. 

1167  End  of  Abdon. 

Daniel's  vision,  I  Belshazzar. 

58  • Nero's  4th  year. 

Romanism  Latinized. 

1283  Wicliffe  born. 

End  of  the  world-week. 

7350  =^  total  world-age,  h-  6  days  =1225  vrs.  each. 

Is  it  not  possible,  that  the  Hebrew  text  before  Abraham  is,  as  to 
dates,  a  corruption  from  the  Septuagint  (as  here  given),  providentiallv 
ordered  on  purpose  that  men  might  not  too  soon  come  "to  know  the 
times  and  the  seasons"  of  the  coming  kingdom? 


B.  C.  4229 

B.  C.  3004 

3- 

B.C.  1779 

5- 
fi. 

A.  D.  672 

A.  D.  1897 

•''The  date  of  the  vision  is  given  (Dan.  vii:  i)  as  "the  ist  j-ear  of 
Belshazzar,"  whose  17  years  ended  at  the  capture  of  Babvlon,  B.  C. 
538.     Hence  that  ist  year  was  B.  C.  554. 

Clinton  makes  the  vision  of  chap,  viii  to  be  B.  C.  553.  "  Belshazzar's 
accession  according  to  Ptolemy's  Canon  being  555,"  soon  after  which 
HI  his  ist  year  the  previous  vision  of  chap,  vii  took  ]:)lace. 

IThe  "  Book  of  Jubilees"  (A.  D.  100)  uses  this  very  two-day  period, 
or  "2450  years,"  so  figuring  as  to  make  it  cover  the  interval  from  crea- 
tion to  Joshua,  which  it  calls  a  jieriod  of  "fifty  jubilees."  (See  here. 
Part  I,  i^  24,  34.) 

:j:  With  exact  Innations  354  d.+33fi,  the  1260  lunar  years==i223  solai' 
years. 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  341 

CHAPTER  II. 

Prophetic  Datings. 

?  84.  Christ  told  his  disciples  (Acts  i:  7):  "  It  is  not  for  you  to 
know  the  times  and  the  seasons  which  the  Father  hath  put  in  his  own 
power."  We  are  warned  by  this  not  to  look  in  Scripture  for  exact 
dates  of  future  events,  especially  as  to  the  coming  of  "  the  kingdom  " 
here  inquired  about.  Yet  we  know  for  certain,  that  there  are  some  im- 
portant datings  given  long  beforehand,  such  as  the  "seventy  weeks  " 
of  Daniel,  made  sufficiently  plain  to  serve  as  a  general  guide  when  the 
event  approached.  (See  Isa.  vii:  8,  etc.)  We  are  expressly  instructed 
to  watch  "the  signs  of  the  times  "  foretold;  and  Bible  numbers  may  in 
some  cases  have  been  furnished,  not  to  be  understood  then  (I  Pet.  i:  2), 
but  to  be  developed  as  time  advances.  There  are  certainly  prophetic 
times  given  in  the  Word  of  God. 

In  the  "  seventy  weeks,"  and  in  some  other  cases,  a  day  stood  for  a 
year,  as  we  are  expressly  informed  (Ezek.  iv:  6;  Num.  xiv:  34);  and 
many  think  a  large  part  of  the  prophetic  dates  are  thus  intended, 
especially  the  apocalyptic  numbers  1260,  1290,  1335,  2300,  666,  etc. 
Much  can  be  said  in  favor  of  this  view.  One  strong  argument  for  it 
is,  the  seeming  pettiness  of  foretelling  an  event  centuries  distant  with- 
out giving  its  date;  yet  taking  pains  to  specify  the  exact  number  of 
days  for  its  continuance — a  number  which  can  not  be  verified  as  days, 
even  after  the  occurrence,  as  in  case  of  the  "  2300."  Of  what  possible 
use  can  such  a  prophesy  be  to  anybody?  and  what  could  be  the  intent 
in  giving  it?  But  without  adopting  the  year- day  theory,  we  shall  find 
in  past  history  some  striking  illustrations  of  its  application,  which  are 
remarkable  coincidences,  to  say  the  least.     Take  a  few  examples, 

\  85.  In  regard  to  the  ending  of  6000  years  at  A.  D.  1897  (see  here, 
previous  chapter),  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  prophetic  number  given 
by  Daniel  in  closing  his  visions  (xii:  11),  viz.:  "  1290  days, "if  interpreted 
as  usual  upon  the  year-day  theory  as  meaning  1290  years,  will  reach 
back  from  A.  D.  1897  to  A.  D.  607,  the  very  time  when  the  Romish 
hierarchy  was  fully  established.  And  the  "1260"  which  he  gives  at 
ver.  7,  and  also  at  vii:  25  (as  "  time,  times,  and  a  half  "  for  the  "  little 
horn  "  of  Rome=3>^  years  of  360  days  each=i26o  days  or  years,  or 
"42  months"  of  30  days  each, — so  at  Rev.  xi:  2,  3,  and  xii:  6,  14,  and 
xiii:  5), — these  1260  extend  from  that  same  A.  D.  607-10  down  to  1866-70, 
when  the  Romish  hierachy  began  to  end  by  being  shorn  of  its  temporal 
power! 

The  Roman  Emperor  Phocas  ascended  the  throne  November  23, 
A.  D.  602.  In  the  5th  year  of  his  reign,  August  i,  A.  D.  607  ("  indie, 
xi  "  beginning)  is  dated  his  decree  making  Boniface  III,  the  Bishop  of 


342  PERIOD    A,    B 

Rome  (who  had  commenced  the  i8th  of  February,  before)  to  be  Pope 
and  "head  of  all  the  churches,")  "Papa — caput  esse  omniuni  ecclesi- 
arum''),  both  east  and  west,  including  the  church  of  Constantinople 
(the  Emperor's  capital)  as  well  as  of  Rome  (the  seat  of  the  Pope.) 
This  was  but  the  carrying  out  and  enforcement  of  a  previous  similar 
decree  of  the  emperor  Justinian  dated  in  A.  D.  533.  Pope  Boniface  III 
lived  but  three  months  more,  dying  November  10,  A.  D.  607;  so  that, 
it  was  Boniface  IV  that  enjoyed  the  first  papal  supremacy,  under  the 
emperor  Phocas  who  died  in  A.  D.  610,  having  in  608  donated  to  his 
papal  protege  the  Roman  Vatican,  thenceforward  dedicated  to  the  Vir- 
gin Mary  and  all  the  saints.  Thus  was  the  Romish  church  supremacy 
fully  established  in  A.  D.  607-610.* 

§86.  And  after  1,260  years,  in  A.  D.  1867-70,  that  supremacy  re- 
ceived its  consuming  stroke  by  the  loss  of  its  temporal  power,  just  as 
it  was  putting  on  its  latest  airs  as  anti-Christ,  asserting  the  Papal  in- 
fallibility. In  1866-7  several  Romish  countries  succumbed  to  their 
foes,  and  a  rebellion  in  Rome  had  to  be  put  down  by  French  troops. 
In  1869  the  Pope  gathered  an  immense  council,  which  on  July  i8th, 
1870,  proclaimed  him  infallible.  The  very  next  day  the  war  of  France 
against  Prussia  was  proclaimed.  The  fall  of  Napoleon  III  and  the 
proclamation  of  the  Republic  followed.  On  the  21st  of  August  the 
French  troops  evacuated  Rome,  and  September  20th,  A.  D.  1870,  Victor 
Emanuel  entered  Rome  with  the  Italian  troops,  fi^om  which  time  the 
Pope's  temporal  power  was  at  an  end. 

Thus  did  the  supi'emacy  of  the  Romish  Papacy,  arising  in  A.  D. 
607-10,  finish  its  1260  years  in  A.  D.  1867-70  with  the  loss  of  its  tem- 
poral power,  wherewith  it  was  able  to  "wear  out  the  saints  of  the 
Most  High  *  **  until  a  time  and  times  and  the  dividing  of  time,  "(1260 
yrs.  Dan.  vii:  25),  in  the  last  days  following  the  fourth  great  empire 
(the  Roman  world,  ver.  23,  24.)!  What  further  awaits  it,  at  the  end 
of  the  "1290"  (of  Dan.  xii:  11),  viz:  at  A.  D.  1897-igoo,  where  ends  the 

*The  1st  year  of  the  emperor  Phocas,  A.  D.  603,  was  just  666  years 
after  Rome  first  conquered  Jerusalem  through  Pompey  in  B.  C.  64. 
And  in  Rev.  xiii:  18,  this  "  666  "  is  given  as  "  the  number  of  the  beast  " 
— the  second  or  ecclesiastical  development  of  the  Roman  beast  (ver. 
11).  Is  not  this  Roman  JiierarcJiy  here  numbered  by  the  date  oi  the 
emperor  (Phocas)  who  gave  it  supremacy? — a  date  of  the  interval  be- 
fore him  during  which  the  Romans  had  held  sway  over  God's  people. 
Did  not  the  Roman  hierarchy  thus  have  a  date-fuonber  666,  as  well  as 
a  "  number  of  the  name"  666  as  expressed  by  the  letters  of  the  Roman 
designation  "  Lateinos"? 

f  Scott's  Commentary  (as  early  as  1812)  following  Faber,  gave  the 
rise  of  Popery  by  the  decree  of  Phocas  as  A.  D.  606,  saying:  "  Prob- 
ably at  the  end  of  1260  years  from  A.  D.  606  [in  A.  D.  1866]  the  glowing 
events  predicted  will  begin  to  receive  a  remarkable  fulfillment." 
{Com.  on  Dan.  vii:  2j.) 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  343 

6,000  years  from  Creation,  remains  to  be  seen.  But  there  is  another 
side  to  these  prophetic  numberings,  which  is  worthy  of  close  con- 
sideration. 

§87.  Daniel's  vision  of  the  Papal  "horn"  in  the  7th  chapter,  as 
just  cited  (ver.  8,  20,  25),  was  followed  by  another  vision  in  the  8th 
chapter  (ver.  i),  a  vision  of  the  Down-Treading  "horn"  (ver.  9-14.) 
Many  have  supposed  this  to  mean  the  same  power  as  in  the  previous 
chapter;  but  the  fourth  or  Roman  kingdom  is  left  out  entirely  from  this 
vision,  and  the  dow7i' treading  horn  comes  out  from  one  of  the  four  di- 
visions of  the  Greek  Kingdom  (ver.  8,  9,  21-23.)  Its  primary  reference 
may  have  been  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes  coming  out  of  the  Macedonian 
division,  and  in  B.  C.  168-5  overpowering  Jerusalem  with  a  brief  literal 
fulfillment  of  the  abominations  here  depicted.  The  Maccabees  at  that 
time  so  understood  Daniel's  prophecy  (see  I  Mac.  i:  57,  62,  etc.)  and  so 
did  Josephus  afterward  (Antiq.  10,  xi:  7,  and  12,  vii:  6.) 

But  Daniel's  vision  plainly  had  a  much  further  reach,  as  is  evident 
from  the  explanation  of  it  given  by  the  angel  (ver.  17),  "Understand, 
O  son  of  man,  for  at  the  time  of  the  end  shall  be  the  vision."  (See  ver. 
19-23.)  "  Shut  thou  up  the  vision,  for  it  shall  he  for  many  days'"  (ver. 
26).  At  a  later  date,  that  same  Gabriel  came  to  make  Daniel  "under- 
stand the  matter  and  consider  the  vision  "  (ix:  21-23),  which  evidently 
meant  the  vision  now  before  us  in  the  8th  chapter,  for  the  angel  now 
tells  about  the  very  taking  away  of  the  sacrifice  and  setting  up  of  ab- 
omination (ix:  27),  which  that  vision  relates  (viii:  11-13).  And  in  this 
angel-explanation  of  the  down-treading  "  horn"  is  put  (at  ix:  23-27) 
the  full  exhibit  of  the  "  seventy  weeks  "  that  were  to  intervene  before 
the  finished  work  of  "Messiah  the  Prince."'  Moreover,  in  chapter  9 
(ver.  21),  it  was  the  same  "  Gabriel  *  *  *  seen  in  the  vision  at  the 
beginning,"  viz:  at  chapter  viii:  16,  who  explains  the  whole  two 
chapters  (though  years  apart)  as  pertaining  to  the  same  vision. 

I  88.  Those  "  seventy  weeks,"  or  70  times  7  days  of  years=4go 
years,  are  universally  thus  expounded  upon  the  year-day  theory,  as 
reaching  from  the  Ezra  decree  (B.  C.  457)  to  Christ's  finished  announce- 
ment to  the  Gentiles  (A.  D.  34),  he  being  "  cut  off  in  the  midst  of  the 
week  ending  the  seventy,  viz.,  in  A.  D.  30.  This  goes  to  confirm  the 
year-day  theory.  And  thus  the  division  reaches  down  to  the  time  of 
Christ,  at  least.  Christ  himself  cited  this  "abomination  of  desolation 
spoken  of  by  Daniel  tlie  prophet,"  applying  it  to  the  Roman  army 
(Mat.  xxiv:  15,  Mark  xiii:  14).  We  are  certain,  therefore,  by  the  testi- 
mony of  our  Lord,  that  the  doiun-trcading  "  horn  "  of  Daniel  was  meant 
to  include  more  than  the  literal  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  It, 
doubtless,  was  intended  as  a  picture  of  down-treading  and  oppression 
to  God's  people,  and  especially  to  the  Jews  (his  original  people),  down 
to  "the  time  of  the  end,"  as  the  vision  itself  declares  (viii:  17),  when 
Daniel  himself  by  resurrection  should  "stand  in  his  lot  at  the  end  of 
the  days.''     (xii:  2,  12.) 


344  PERIOD    A,    B 


Trodden  Under  Foot. 


§  89.  What,  then,  have  been  the  signal  indignities  offered  to  Jeru- 
salem and  the  sanctuary  or  temple  of  the  Jews,  which  might  well  be 
viewed  in  the  vision  as  "  the  place  of  his  sanctuary  cast  down  "  (ix:  11), 
and  "the  abomination  of  desolation"  set  up,  and  "both  the  sanctuary 
and  the  host  (or  people  of  God)  trodden  under  foot,"  (viii:  13,  and  ix: 
27,  and  xii:ii)  ?  We  answer:  The  depredations  of  Antiochus  showed 
such  a  typical  disaster  and  its  cure:  the  later  Roman  invasion  and 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  was  a  more  complete  fulfil- 
ment of  the  casting  down  part  of  the  vision.  But  beyond  and  above 
all,  the  still  later  seizing  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Mohammedans,  and  the 
rearing  of  a  Moslem  pagoda,  the  Mosque  of  Omar,  on  the  very  site  of 
the  temple,  there  remaining  to  desecrate  holy  ground  to  this  day, — this 
is  the  crowning  or  "  ovei'spreading  of  abominations"  to  the  Jewish 
"  sanctuary,"  "  making  it  desolate  (he  sa3's)  even  until  the  consumma- 
tion, and  that  determined  shall  be  poured  upon  the  desolate"  (ix:  27), 
as  we  see  it  to-day. 

The  learned  Faber,  and  after  him  Dr.  Scott  in  his  commentary, 
has  fully  and  ably  shown,  how  clearly  that  down-treading  vision  of 
Daniel  depicts  the  Mohammedan  power:  and  the  British  Commentary 
of  Fausset  and  others  concur  in  this  view.  Arising  in  Arabia,  the 
southeastern  division  of  the  third  (the  Greek  or  Macedonian)  Empire, 
the  bloody  Moslem  sword  swept  "toward  the  south  (Africa),  and  toward 
the  east  (Asia),  and  toward  the  pleasant  land"  of  the  Jews  (viii:  9); 
and  with  a  professed  commission  from  God  himself  "'the  p/acf  of  his 
sanctuary  was  cast  down"  (ver.  11),  and  a  Mohammedan  mosque  was 
"set  up"  in  its  place,  as  an  "abomination  of  desolation"  (ver.  13) 
to  all  after  ages.  It  was  in  A.  D.  637  that  these  Moslem  hordes  got 
possession  of  Jerusalem,  and  marked  the  site  for  the  mosque  of  Omar 
on  the  ruins  of  the  Jewish  temple.  (See  Chambers'  Cyc.  and  all  authori- 
ties.) That  mosque  then  built  has  ever  since  stood  as  the  sign  of  the 
down-treading  of  both  Judaism  and  Christianity  by  the  Mohammedan 
"horn." 

§  go.  And  what  was  to  be  the  length  of  this  t7-eading-down  by  the 
Mohammedan  "horn  "?  After  Daniel's  vision  of  the  8th  and  9th  chap- 
ters, an  angel  came  to  make  him  understand  "the  vision"  (x:  14), 
which  he  was  told  related  to  ' '  what  shall  befall  thy  people  in 
the  latter  days."  This  shows,  both  that  the  time  of  the  vision 
reached  to  remote  ages,  and  that  even  there  it  had  some  relation  to  the 
literal  Jews  (Daniel's  own  people),  and  to  their  own  Jerusalem  and  the 
place  of  their  sanctuary,  as  profaned  by  the  Moslem  mosque.  In  this 
last  explanation  the  angel  gives  particulars  reaching  down  even  to  the 
final  resurrection  of  the  dead  (xii:  2),  and  then  at  ver.  7  (Revision)  the 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  345 

duration  of  the  closing  part  of  the  vision  (the  treading-down  portion  or 
Moslem  profanation)  is  given.  The  angel  "lifted  up  his  right  hand 
and  his  left  hand  to  heaven,  and  sware  by  Him  that  liveth  forever,  that 
it  shall  be  for  a  time,  times  and  a  half,  and  when  he  shall  have  made 
an  end  of  breaking  in  pieces  the  power  of  the  holy  people,  all  these 
things  shall  be  finished."  That  is,  the  treading- dowji  shall  end  at  the 
end  of  the  days,  when  God's  people  shall  seem  to  be  completely  scat- 
tered and  forsaken.  The  same-duration  of  the  treading-down  is  given  by 
John'inthe  Revelation  (xi:2),  evidently  cited  from  Daniel.  "  The  court 
which  is  without  the  temple  *  *  *  is  given  unto  the  Gentiles,  and 
the  holy  city  shall  they  tread  tinder  foot  forty  and  two  months," 
/.  <?.,  1260  days  or  years,  the  same  as  the  lYi  "  times  "  or  years  of 
years. 

Now  mark  that  these  1260  years  of  the  Moslem  profanation  or  com- 
pleted treading  under  foot,  carry  us  from  A.  D.  637,  when  the  mosque 
of  Omar  was  established  at  Jerusalem  then  captured  by  the  armies  of 
Mohammed,  down  exactly  to  A.  D.  1897,  when  6000  years  of  the  world's 
history  expire,  according  to  the  Hebrew  chronology  of  the  Bible, 
This  certainly  is  a  most  striking  coincidence,  concerning  the  meaning 
of  which  every  one  must  judge  for  himself.  Does  it  mean  that  then 
about  A.  D.  1897,  the  Mohammedan  power,  already  so  weakened  in  the 
hands  of  the  Turks,  is  to  lose  completely  its  hold  upon  Jerusalem,  and 
even  the  mosque  of  Omar  is  to  fall  or  to  become  consecrated  to  the 
use  of  the  true  Israel  of  God  ?  Things  as  strange  as  that  have  happened 
in  our  day. 

§  91.  But  another  striking  point  occurs  in  this  closing  chapter  of 
Daniel.  As  soon  as  he  was  told  of  his  "  time,  times  and  a  half,"  or 
1260  years,  he  was  still  more  definitely  instructed  thus  (ver.  11):  "And 
from  the  time  that  the  daily  sacrifice  shall  be  taken  away,  and  the 
abomination  that  maketh  desolate  set  up,  there  shall  be  a  thousand 
two  hundi^ed  and  ninety  days,"  or  years.  These  30  more  years  are 
given,  evidently  back  to  an  earlier  date,  /.  <?.,  from  another  starting 
point  specified — not  the  treading-down  but  the  end  of  sacrifice.  In 
other  words,  these  1290  years  carry  us  back  from  A.  D.  1897  to  A.  D. 
607,  just  30  years  before  the  A.  D.  637,  when  the  mosque  of  Omar  was 
founded  in  Jerusalem.  And  what  occurred  then  ?  The  crushing  of  the 
true  spiritual  daily  sacrifice  by  the  rise  of  Mohammedanism  as  well  as 
Popery,  both  at  that  time. 

Mohammed  was  born  "about  A.D.  570;"  he  firstproclaimed  his  system 
at  "  about  40  yearsof  age,"  /.  e.,  about  A.  D.  610.  So  says  Chambers' 
Cyc,  and  all  authorities  agree.  The  "  Hegira"  or  flight  from  Mecca, 
from  which  the  Mohammedan  calendar  dates  its  years,  was  July  16,  A, 
D.  622,  which  was  "ten,  thirteen  or  fifteen  years  (according  to  the 
different  traditions)  after  his  assuming  the  sacred  office."  {Chambers 
Cyc.)     The    13  years  makes  his  work  begin  A.  D.  609;  the  15  years 


346  PERIOD    A,    B 

makes  it  begin  A.  D.  607.  We  may  safely  say,  therefore,  that 
Mohammedanism  arose  from  A.  D.  607  to  610,  and  Daniel's  1290  years 
for  its  existence  carry  us  to  the  point  A.  D.  1897  to  1900. 

§  92.  But  why  is  this  1290  reckoning  added  to  the  1260  reckoning 
above  ?  It  would  seem  that  the  angel,  after  telling  Daniel  the  length  of 
Moslem  possession  or  treading-down  of  the  holy  city  literally,  wished  to 
notifyhim  that  there  was  a  higher  sense  in  which  spiritually  the  Moslem 
sway  was  to  be  dated  from  its  rise,  when  it  did  in  reality  begin  to  "take 
away  the  daily  sacrifice  "  or  true  worship  of  God,  and  to  "  set  up  the 
abomination  of  desolation  "  or  false  worship,  even  in  "the  place  of  the 
sanctuary,"  or  the  regions  held  before  that  by  the  Christian  church, 
the  true  Israel,  the  real  Jerusalem,  the  spiritual  temple  of  God.  And 
this  Christian  or  New  Testament  notation  of  the  time  was  added,  no 
doubt,  in  order  to  coniiect  the  more  Judaic  reckoning  as  to  the  literal 
Jerusalem  with  the  Papal  reckoning  which  pertained  to  the  Christain 
church  or  spiritual  Israel. 

For,  let  it  be  here  well  noted,  that  the  Mohammedan  power  and  the 
Papal  both  arose  together,  as  twin  monsters  of  religious  error 
and  persecution,  ti^eading  down  the  true  church  of  God.  Mohammed 
set  forth  his  system  from  A.  D.  607  to  610,  as  we  have  seen;  and  the 
Papacy  began  its  universal  supremacy  in  A.  D.  607  with  the  decree  of 
the  Emperor  Phocas,  more  fully  carried  out  to  his  death  in  A.  D.  610. 
Thence  the  1260  years,  as  given  for  the  Papacy  particularly  in  Dan. 
vii:  25,  and  in  Rev.  xii:  6,  14,  and  xiii:  5,  reach  to  A.  D.  1867  to  1870, 
as  we  saw,  when  the  Pope's  temporal  power  was  taken  away,  as  the 
beginning  of  the  end.  And  the  30  years  extra,  here  added  at  the  end 
in  case  of  the  Pope  (instead  of  the  Moslem  30  coming  at  the  beginning), 
carry  us  to  the  "consummation"  or  end  of  6000  years  at  A.  D.  1897 
to  1900. 

The  prophesying  of  the  "two  witnesses  clothed  in  sackcloth" 
<Rev.  xi:  3),  understood  as  the  Word  of  God  experienced  in  the  ti"ue 
church  (/.  e.,  "the  Spirit  and  the  Bride  saying  Come,"  xxii:  17),  may 
not  only  reach  through  the  1260  years  of  complete  Roman  Supremacy 
(A.  D.  606-10  to  1866-70),  but  may  also  cover  a  preliminary  1260  years 
of  Bible  Apostacy,  from  A.  D.  254,  when  the  Novation  reform  was 
suppressed,  (Neander,  Vol.  I,  p.  237,  246,  248),  to  A.  D.  1514,  when 
Tetzel's  Popish  indulgences  led  to  Luther's  reformation.  (See  my 
essay  on  "  Antichrist  and  the  Two  Witnesses.") 

§  93.  Thus  do  the  prophetic  numbers,  both  of  Daniel  and  of  John, 
wonderfully  combine  in  the  harmony  of  history,  concerning  the  two 
great  opposing  religious  powers  of  Christendom.  Mormonism  and  the 
like  are  l:)ut  forms  of  the  Moslem  heresy;  and  all  church  hierarchy 
and  formalism  is  but  an  offshoot  of  Popery.  These  all  must  share  the 
same  fate,  as  one  common  Antichrist  or  man  of  sin,  "whom  the  Lord 


DILUVIAN    CHRONOLOGY  347 

shall  consume  with  the  spirit  of  his  mouth  (as  he  is  already  doing), 
and  (presently)  shall  destroy  with  the  brightness  of  his  coming."  (II 
Thes.  ii:  8.) 

The  "2300  Days"  or  Years. 

§  94.  There  is  another  aspect  of  these  prophetic  numbers,  which 
calls  for  our  special  notice.  In  Daniel's  dovvntreading  vision  of  the 
8th  chapter,  its  full  length  is  given  as  "  2300  days  "  or  years  (ver.  14); 
and  the  "70  weeks  "  or  490  years  are  said  to  be  "  determined."  (Heb. 
cut  off),  as  if  those  70  weeks  began  the  2300  as  years.  If  then  we  date 
both  from  B.  C.  457  (where  the  70  weeks  certainly  begin),  the  2300 
years  will  reach  to  A.  D.  1844.  And  what  was  to  take  place  then,  at 
the  close  of  the  2300-year  vision  ?  The  Angel  says:  "Then  shall  the 
sanctuary  be  cleansed,"  /.  c,  from  the  down-treading  and  abomination 
which  took  away  the  daily  sacrifice  or  true  worship.  This  would 
seem  to  mean,  that  "the  sanctuary"  or  region  of  God's  earlier  wor- 
ship would  then  be  cleansed,  or  begin  to  be  cleansed,  from  the  Moham- 
medan "abomination"  of  oppression  which  had  trodden  doiun  the 
true  daily  sacrifice,  or  worship  of  God. 

And  that  very  thing  did  take  place  in  A.  D.  1844.  A  decree  of 
RELIGIOUS  TOLERATION  was  wruug  from  the  Ottoman  government,  the 
Turkish  Pasha  at  Constantinople,  giving  liberty  of  worship  throughout 
his  Mahomedan  dominions,  including  Palestine  and  Jerusalem;  so 
that,  from  that  time  the  daily  sacrifice  of  true  worship  (till  then  com- 
pletel}^  trodden  down)  is  set  up,  and  the  old  sanctuary  of  Jewish  and 
Christian  service  in  and  about  "the  holy  city  "  is  so  far  cleansed  from 
the  "abomination"  of  Moslem  despotism.  The  edict  was  dated 
March  21,  A.  D.  1844.  Then  %vas  "the  sanctuary  (in  a  measure) 
cleansed,"  as  the  beginning  of  the  end,  which  is  soon  to  sweep  away 
the  Moslem  and  the  Papal  powers  together.  Prophetic  students  just 
before  that  event  noticed  this  pointing  of  the  2300  to  that  year,  and 
thought  something  was  coming  then.  Whatever  folly  may  be  thought 
to  have  attended  the  Miller  excitement  of  1843,  there  was  at  least  this 
one  true  idea  connected  with  it.  Something  biblical  did  then  occur, 
as  we  see,  a  striking  omen  of  the  end. 

§  95.  We  have  seen  (at  §  87)  that  the  70  weeks  of  chapter  9  and 
the  2300  days  or  years  of  chapter  8  begin  together  as  one  vision,  at  B.  C. 
457.  The  selection  of  so  late  a  date,  at  the  Ezra-Nehemiah  decree  of 
Artaxerxes,  as  the  first  starting  point  for  the  whole  vision  (both  of  the 
70  weeks  and  of  the  2300  days),  is  at  first  a  matter  of  surprise.  But  a 
little  thought  shows  us  the  probable  reason.  The  question  was  (viii: 
13),  "  How  long  shall  be  the  vision  concerning  the  daily  sacrifice,  and 
the  transgression  of  desolation,  to  give  both  the  sanctuary  and  the 
host  to  be  trodden  under  foot  ?  "     So  then,    "  the  dailv  sacrifice"  and 


348  PERIOD    A,    B 

"the  transgression  "  against  it  were  the  two  things  covered  by  the  vis- 
ion and  its  "2300"  years, — the  literal  continuance  of  the  daily  sacrifice 
being  covered  by  its  first  part,  the  "70  weeks," — and  the  transgres- 
sion against  it  occupying  the  rest  of  the  2300  years,  particularly  the 
last  "  1260  years  "  of  it.  This  last  part,  Christ  calls  "the  times  of  the 
Gentiles,"  (Luke  xxi:  24);  and  Paul  refers  to  the  same.    (Rom.  xi:  25.) 

Now  "the  daily  sacrifice"  probably  was  not  fully  re-established 
till  the  coming  of  Ezra  to  Jerusalem.  For,  although  Jeshua  began  it 
in  B.  C.  537,  (see  Ezra  iii:  3,  4),  yet  it  was  at  once  interrupted  for  21 
years  till  the  dedication  of  the  temple  in  B.  C.  516,  (see  vi:  15-18);  and 
then  a  great  gap  of  decline  followed  (at  vii:  i)  for  59  years  (or  80  years 
in  all)  till  in  B.  C.  457  Ezra  came  (followed  by  Nehemiah),  with  a  de- 
cree "to  7-estore  and  build  Jerusalem."  Ezra  chiefly  restored  things 
in  a  religious  and  civil  way,  reinstating  the  sacrifices,  etc.  (vii:  17,  and 
ix:  5);  while  Nehemiah  soon  added  the  material  building  up.  This 
date,  then,  the  7th  of  Artaxerxes,  was  the  real  era  of  a  fully  restored 
daily  sacrifice,  and  well  selected  as  the  date  beginning  its  continuance 
and  its  subsequent  suppression. 

§  96.  Since  the  1260  years  of  Mohammedan  power  over  Jerusalem 
(from  A.  D.  637)  reach  "  an  end  "  at  A.  D,  1897,  and  the  2300  years 
(from  B.  C.  457)  reach  to  the  beginning  of  the  "  sanctuary  cleansed  " 
in  A.  D.  1844,  as  we  have  seen, — it  seems  there  are  (1897 — 1844=)  53 
years  of  cleansing  between.  That  is,  the  total  2300  (from  B.  C.  457  to 
A.  D.  1844),  applies  also  to  the  interval  53  years  later  (from  B.  C.  404 
to  A.  D.  1897).  And  as  there  were  53  years  of  wall-building  and  pre- 
paration at  the  beginning,  so  there  are  also  53  years  of  preparing  the 
end,  viz.,  from  A.  D.  1844  to  1897.  And  the  70  weeks  or  490  years  be- 
ginning the  2300  thus  also  apply  53  years  later,  from  B.  C.  404  to  A.  D. 
87.  * 

These  53  years  are  7><  weeks  of  years;  and  it  will  be  noticed,  that 
the  70  weeks  are  divided  into  7  weeks  and  i  week  in  addition  to  62 
weeks,  "  the  midst  "  or  half  of  the  i  week  being  put  at  the  end  of  all 
(Dan:  ix:  27),  or — by  equivalence — after  the  first  7  weeks,  making  7^ 
weeks  or  53  years  (from  B.  C.  457  to  404)  as  the  full  time  of  decree  and 
preparation.  So  that  the  62  weeks  (or  the  434th  year)  before  "Mes- 
siah the  Prince,"  extends  from  the  crucifixion  in  A.  D.  30 back  to  B.  C. 
404. 

\  97.  And  why  was  that  year  B.  C.  404  thus  marked?  Probably 
as  the  date  of  Malachi  and  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  as  a 
close  of  preparation  and  wall  building  both  for  the  city  and  for  the 


*  An  intermediate  reckoning  of  the  2300  is  that  of  Dr.  Hales,  viz. 
from  B.  C.  421  to  A.  D.  70  and  to  A.  D.  1880. 


DILUVIAN   i:HRONOLOGY  349 

book.*  In  like  manner,  the  "70  weeks"  dated  again  from  that  time 
to  A.  D.  87,  may  give  us  the  date  of  John's  book  of  Revelation  and 
the  closing  of  the  New  Testament  Canon;  as  indicated  at  Dan.  ix:  24, 
where  we  are  told  that  the  70 weeks  are  "to  seal  up  vision  and  proph- 
ecy."' A.  D.  87  will  answer  as  the  date  of  Revelation,  since  we  only 
know  from  Ireneus  that  it  was  in  the  reign  of  Domitian,  A.  D.  81-96. 
And  such  a  double  reckoning  of  the  490  and  2300  is  scriptural,  as  seen 
in  the  case  of  the  70  years'  captivity  and  other  intervals,  f 

I  98.  But  the  most  singular  thing  about  these  numbers  is  yet  to  be 
named.  Not  only  did  the  down-treading  vision  of  Daniel  8th  and  9th 
point  out  a  70  weeks  or  490  years  "cutoff"  at  the  beginning  of  the 
2300,  but  also  a  1260  years  cut-off  at  the  end,  as  the  special  portion  of 
Moslem  down-treading.  The  1260  solar  years  reach  back  from  A.  D. 
1897  to  the  beginning  of  Moslem  down-treading  in  A.  D.  637;  but  at 
the  same  time,  1260  Mohammedan  or  lunar  years  are  (365^25  °^  1260^) 
izzzyi  solar  years,  from  A.  D.  1844  back  to  A.  D.  622,  the  era  of  "  the 
Hegira,"  whence  Mohammedans  number  their  years.  So  that,  as  1260 
of  their  years  reach  from  the  Moslem  Era  to  1844,  therefore  the  year 
A.  D.  1844  was  the  very  Mohammedan  year  "  1260,  "  when  the  decree 
of  toleration  was  issued,  and  the  "  treading-down  "  of  the  sanctuary 
began  to  have  a  let-up,  in  accordance  with  Daniel's  prophecy  concern- 
ing "time,  times,  and  half  a  time."  Is  not  this  a  wonderful  coinci- 
dence between  prophecy  and  history  ?  Who  can  deny  that  this  offers 
some  argument  in  favor  of  the  year-day  theory  ? 

These  remarkable  coincidences  we  have  given,  not  as  any  dogmatic 
assertion  of  the  year-day  theory,  but  simply  as  facts  worthy  of  the 
thoughtful  consideration  of  mankind. 


*  Many  think  that  Malachi  prophesied  during  Nehemiah's  reforma- 
tion, after  his  second  coming  to  Jerusalem  (Neh.  xiii:  6,  7),  say  about 
B.  C.  425;  because  Malachi 's  earlier  chapters  preached  a  like  reforma- 
tion. But  if  so,  yet  the  life  and  the  book  of  Malachi  did  not  etid  till 
afterward;  as  indicated  by  the  "  7  weeks  "  of  restoration  cut  off  from 
the  70  weeks  of  Daniel.  "  Re-establishing  the  holy  law  and  the  holy 
city  was  a  work  effected  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  with  the  aid  of  Mala- 
chi, in  a  period  of  about  half  a  century,  ending  with  the  death  of 
Malachi  and  Nehemiah  in  the  last  ten  years  of  the  5th  century  B.  C, 
that  is,  the  'seven  weeks.'"     (British  Coin,  of  Fausset  et  ai.) 

f  If  the  53  years  from  B.  C.  404  back  to  457  be  put  with  the  97  years 
thence  back  to  B.  C.  553-4  when  Daniel  had  the  vision,  there  are  just 
150  years  after  the  vision  to  B.  C.  404,  its  final  starting  point  for  the 
490  and  the  2300.  So  that,  the  i5o-(-the  2300^the  2450,  or  i^ao  of  the 
world-days  from  B.  C.  554  to  A.  D.  1897.      (See  in  Chap.  I.) 


RESTORATION  OF  JOSEPHUS. 

'i  I.  In  the  study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  there  is  no  greater  out- 
ward help  than  the  works  of  Josephus.  Living  and  writing  in  the  very 
time  of  the  apostles,  and  going  over  in  detail,  as  he  does,  the  whole 
biblical  and  Jewish  history  from  Adam  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
by  Titus,  his  books  throw  a  flood  of  light  and  confirmation  over  the 
contents  of  the  Bible.  For,  Josephus  is  a  remarkably  faithful  and 
painstaking  historian.  (See  the  citations  in  commendation  of  Jo- 
sephus from  various  authors,  ancient  and  modern,  in  Bib.  Chron., 
Period  D,  §  loo.) 

§  2.  Josephus  is  particularly  full  and  exact  in  regard  to  dates  and 
intervals  of  time;  and  his  figures,  when  rightly  construed,  furnish  the 
best  vindication  we  have  of  the  Bible  History  and  Chronolog}',  as  the 
true  record  of  the  early  career  of  mankind.  But  alas  !  the  present 
copies  of  Josephus  are  sadly  disfigured  with  evident  corruptions  of  his 
text  in  the  matter  of  time  ititervah;  which  have  resulted  from  the  at- 
tempts of  critics  to  accommodate  his  numbers  to  their  diverse  theo- 
ries. Not  comprehending  certain  Jewish  modes  of  speaking  about 
time  intervals,  as  expressed  by  Josephus,  scholai's  have  greatly  mis- 
taken his  meaning,  and  by  their  side  notes  and  conjectural  emenda- 
tions have  brought  in  corruptions  and  interpolations,  which  render  his 
originally  beautiful  system  of  chronology  so  confused  and  contradic- 
tory as  to  be  utterly  incomprehensible  in  its  mutilated  form. 

"  Among  early  Christians  Josephus'  chronology  was  in  the  highest 
repute.  He  was  a  consummate  chronologist,  an  illustrious  historian, 
a  profound  antiquarian;  but  his  text,  especiallj'  the  dates,  we  find 
greatly  mangled.  The  younger  Spanheim  in  his  chronology  has  de- 
voted an  entire  chapter  to  errors,  anachronisms  and  inconsistencies  in 
Josephus,  mostly  from  mistakes  of  transcribers  and  theorists.  He 
says  the  recovery  of  the  genuine  computation  is  very  difficult  and  haz- 
ardous."    {Hales.) 

g  3.  Hales  undertook  a  "  Restoration  of  Josephus,"  but  his  method 
and  results  are  as  unsatisfactory  as  those  that  went  before.  We  in 
our  turn  have  searched  out  the  source  of  all  this  error  and  confusion, 
and  we  think  we  have  found  a  key  that  unlocks  the  whole  mystery  and 
reveals  to  us  Josephus'  chronological  system,  beautiful  and  harmoni- 
351 


352  RESTORATION 

ous,  and  almost  entirely  in  conformity  with  the  sacred  Scriptures,  giv- 
ing them  a  wonderful  confirmation.  To  exhibit  this  key  we  must  begin 
with  Josephus'  Maccabean  history.     (See  O.  T.  Chron.,  Period  F.) 


PART  I. 

The  Primary  Mistake. 

§  4.  The  dating  of  Josephus  is  so  nearly  correct,  both  in  New  Tes- 
tament and  in  Old  Testament  times,  that  we  see  his  error  to  be  chiefly 
in  passing  from  one  to  the  other.  We  learn  the  state  of  the  case  by 
the  following: 

Citations  from  Josephus. 

1.  "After  the  term  of  the  seventy  years'  captivity  under  the 
Babylonians,  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia,  sent  the  Jews  from  Babylon  to 
their  own  land,  and  gave  them  leave  to  rebuild  their  temple;  at  which 
time  Jesus,  the  son  of  Jozedek,  took  the  high  priesthood  over  the  cap- 
tives, when  they  were  returned  home.  Now  he  and  his  posterity,  who 
were  in  all  fifteen,  until  King  Antiochus  Eupator,  were  under  a  demo- 
cratical  government  for  four  hundred  and  fourteen  years;  and  then — 
the  fore-named  Antiochus  and  Lysias,  the  general  of  his  army,  de- 
prived Onias,  who  was  also  named  Menelaus,  of  the  high-priesthood, 
and  slew  him  at  Berea,  and  put  Jacemus  into  the  place  of  the  high- 
priest."  (Antiq.  20,  x:  i.)  "This  was  in  the  hundi^ed  and  fiftieth 
year  of  the  Seleucidae  [B.  C.  163]  *  *  *  It  was  the  seventh  year" 
Sabbatic.     (Antiq.  12,  ix:  3,  5,  7.) 

2.  "  Aristobulus  changed  the  government  into  a  kingdom,  and  was 
the  first  to  put  a  diadem  upon  his  head,  four  hundred  seventy  and  one 
years  and  three  months  after  our  people  came  down  into  this  country, 
when  they  were  set  free  from  the  Babylonish  slavery."  (War.  i,  iii: 
I.)  "When  their  father  Hyrcanus  was  dead,  the  elder  son  Aristo- 
bulus intended  to  change  the  government  into  a  kingdom,  for  so  he 
resolved  to  do;  he,  first  of  all,  put  a  diadem  on  his  head,  four  hundred 
and  eighty  [seventy]  and  one  years  and  three  months  after  the  people 
had  been  delivered  from  the  Babylonish  slavery,  and  were  returned  to 
their  own  country  again."     (Antiq.  13,  xi:  i.)     This  was  B.  C.  106. 

3.  "  Now  the  breast-plate,  and  this  sardonyx  [on  the  high-priest] 
left  off  shining  two  hundred  years  before  I  composed  this  book,  God 
having  been  displeased  at  the  transgression  of  his  laws."  (Antiq.  3, 
viii:  9.)  "  This  very  year  is  the  13th  year  of  Caesar  Domitian  and  the 
56th  year  of  my  own  life."  (Antiq.  20,  xi:  3.)  I  was  born  to  Matthias 
in  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  Cains  Caesar."     (Jos.  Life,  ^  i.) 


OF     JOSEPHUS  353 

4.  "  This  desolation  [bj'  Antiochus]  came  to  pass  according  to  the 
prophecy  of  Daniel,  which  was  given  four  hundred  and  eight  years  be- 
fore; for  he  declared  that  the  Macedonians  would  dissolve  that  wor- 
ship [for  some  time]."     (Antiq.  12,  vii:  6.) 

See  further  in  Period  F,  §  3. 


JOSEPHUS'  57  YEARS  EXCESS. 

g  5.  The  Jews  originally  reckoned  downward  from  the  finished 
captivity  the  same  correct  interval  which  is  given  us  by  Ptolemy's 
Canon.     This  will  appear  as  follows: 

The  original  Jewish  Chronology  may  be  discovered  from  the  Priest 
Record  of  Josephus  (Antiq.  xx:  10),  whose  principal  numbers  he  evi- 
dently borrowed  from  some  previous  official  document.  It  was  there  he 
learned  of  the  "  414  years  "  downward  from  the  finished  captivity;  but 
he  misunderstood  by  57  years  the  terminus  ad  quern  where  that  414  was 
intended  to  end.  He  applied  it  as  reaching  only  down  to  the  depo- 
sition of  Menelaus  from  the  high  priesthood  by  Antiochus  Eupator,  in 

B.  C.  163  (See  Period  F,  |  9);  and  he  so  made  that  Priest  Record  to 
read,  as  seen  in  Citation  i  (here  at  §  4).  But  in  this  he  was  unwittingly 
misrepresenting  the  intent  of  the  number  "414,"  which,  as  given  before 
Josephus  in  the  Priest  Record  document,  was  meant  to  terminate  at 
the  change  of  government  when  Aristobulus  "put  on  a  diadem  "  in  B. 

C.  106,  or  57  years  later  than  where  Josephus  put  the  terminus.  He 
thus  carelessly  introduced  an  error  of  _$■/  yeajs  excess  in  his  chronology; 
which  increases  that  much  all  his  intervals  of  time  that  reach  back 
from  the  later  times  to  the  captivity  or  beyond. 

This  is  the  simple  explanation  of  that  which  has  confounded  all 
chronologists  in  regard  to  Josephus,  and  which  has  thrown  all  his  sim- 
ple and  harmonious  system  into  the  utmost  jargon  of  absurd  and  incon- 
sistent datings,  according  to  the  teachings  of  many  learned  men.  In 
order  to  clear  up  the  fog  concerning  this  excess,  the  reasons  for  it,  and 
the  exact  amount  of  it  (about  which  there  has  been  such  dispute  and 
bewilderment),  let  us  examine,  first 

§  6.  (I.)  The  certainty  that  Josephus  made  the  mistake  of  just  57 
years  as  above  explained,  and  the  cause  of  it. 

It  is  certain,  to  begin  with,  that  the  "414  "  is  assigned  by  Josephus 
to  B.  C.  163  (see  in  Period  F,  §  9),  and  that  this  is  altogether  too  early 
a  date  for  414  years  from  the  finished  captivity  to  terminate.  Now  we 
will  show  that  it  was  at  B.  C.  106  (instead  of  163)  that  those  414  years 
were  at  first  miended  to  end. 

This   very    Priest    Record,    that    gives   the  414   years,    says   that 


354  RESTORATION 

"Judas,  who  was  also  called  Aristobulus, — kept  the  priesthood 
together  with  the  royal  authority;  for  this  Judas  was  the  first  to  put  on 
a  diadem  for  his  one  year;"  after  which  "the  i-oyal  authority  "  was 
kept  up  by  his  successors.  (See  what  his  second  successor  says  of 
himself  and  of  his  father  as  kings,  Ant.  14,  III,  2.)  Elsewhere  Jose- 
phus  tells  us  (Antiq.  13,  xi:  i),  how  "Aristobulus  resolved  to  change 
the  government  into  a  kingdom,  and  so  he  first  of  all  put  a  diadem  on 
his  head."  And  in  his  other  work  (War.  i.  III,  i),  Josephus  says: 
"  Aristobulus  changed  the  government  into  a  kingdom,  and  was  the 
first  that  put  a  diadem  upon  his  head,  *  *  *  after  our  people  came 
down  into  this  country  when  they  were  set  free  from  the  Babylonish 
slavery." 

The  time  when  Aristobulus  thus  took  the  crown,  we  have  (in  Period 
F),  learned  from  the  reckoning  of  Josephus  to  have  been  in  B.  C.  106; 
at  which  time  also  the  priest's  oracular  "breastplate  left  off  shining," 
as  Josephus  tells  us,  200  years  before  his  writing,  "  God  having  been 
displeased  at  the  transgression  of  his  laws." 

g  7.  Now  that  very  Priest  Record,  which  thus  makes  that  memora- 
ble epoch,  and  clearly  explains  the  year's  i^eign  of  Aristobulus  as  the 
era  of  democracy  ended  and  royal  government  begun,  asserts  that 
"the  Jews  were  under  a  democratical  government  414  years"  down- 
ward from  the  finished  captivity,  and  then — "  (See  Citation  i  here,  p. 
3).  And  what  then  ?  It  must  have  meant  to  say —  "and  then  the 
democratical  government  ended,  and  the  royal  authority  was  assumed 
by  Aristobulus,"  with  the  cessation  of  the  priestly  oracle.  As  Jose- 
phus himself  says  (Ant.  11,  iv:  8),  "the  high  priests  were  at  the  head 
of  their  affairs,  until  the  posterity  of  the  Asmoneans  (the  Maccabees) 
set  up  kingly  government." 

This  is  the  only  consistent  story  that  the  original  Priest  Record 
could  have  told.  And  this  was  the  exact  truth  of  history.  For  it  was 
just  414  years  from  B.  C.  520  (the  year  2  of  Darius,  when  the  decree  of 
restoration  after  the  captivity  went  into  effect,  down  to  B.  C.  106, 
when  Aristobulus  put  on  the  diadem  of  royalty.  Eusebius  uses  this 
414  years  of  the  Priest  Record  just  as  we  put  it  here;  for  he  says, 
(Hist.  B.  I,  p.  178.)  "Aristobulus  took  the  diadem  in  the  year  484 
after  the  Bablonish  captivity,"  /.  e.,  (484-70=)  "414  years"  after  its 
close,  just  as  the  original  Priest  Record  had  it,  not  as  Josephus 
wrongly  makes  it,  ■  (414+57=)  "471  years,"  (See  citation  2,  here  §4.) 

\  8.  But  this  accurate  account  of  the  original  Priest  Record  which 
Josephus  had  before  him,  was  so  loosely  worded,  or  somehow  so  mis- 
taken by  Josephus,  that  he  gives  the  termitiiis  ad  quevi  quite  different 
from  its  intent.  He  has  got  it  to  read  (20  x:  i)  "  The  Jews  were 
under  democratical  government  414  years"  downwards;    "and  then 


OF     JOSEPHUS  355 

— (not  democracy  ended,  but) — then"  the  hi^h-priest  Menelaus  was 
deposed  by  Eupator.  The  mistake  of  Josephus  is  obvious,  which  thus 
thrust  57  extra  years  into  his  chronology.  Plainly,  the  numbers  given 
were' those  of  a  document,  which  he  was  editing  in  that  closing  chapter 
of  his  Antiquities;  and  it  shows  a  mixture  of  the  previous  reckoning 
and  of  his  own  mistaken  application  of  it. 

^  g.  But  how  could  Josephus  make  such  a  large  mistake  in  the 
chronology  of  these  inter-testimental  times  ?  The  error  was  caused 
or  facilitated  by  the  general  ignorance  prevalent  among  the  Jews,  and 
evident  in  Josephus  as  well  as  in  Christian  writers  afterward,  concern- 
ing the  pre-Seleucic  history.  The  true  inter-testimental  interval  of 
time  in  the  dark  age  between  Xerxes  and  Alexander  the  Great  was 
lost.  (Had  Josephus  seen  the  Greek  historians,  as  he  had  the  Baby- 
lonian and  Tyrian,  the  early  Olympic  dates  would  have  set  him 
right.)  Josephus  shows  how  ignorant  he  was  of  the  Persian  history, 
by  his  meager  and  mixed  account  of  this  long  period  (Book  xi).  This 
is  his  one  weak  spot.  When  with  Nehemiah  he  reached  the  end  of  the 
Bible  record,  he  was  all  afloat,  until  he  got  to  the  Seleucic  era  in  B. 
C.  312.  Hales,  like  others,  seems  to  have  no  idea  of  the  cause  or  occa- 
sion of  error,  only  intimating  by  the  word  "present"  that  there  may 
have  been  some  corrupting  of  the  text.  But  the  fact  that  all  Josephus' 
reckoning  is  based  upon  this  error,  forbids  such  a  supposition. 

I  10.  (H.)  Having  thus  shown  the  cause  of  error, — inter-testa- 
mental  ignorance, — let  us  now  note  the  probable  occasion  of  it.  The 
Jews  were  of  course  greatl)-  interested  in  the  "seventy  weeks"  of 
Daniel,  which  seemed  to  fix  distinctly  beforehand  the  time  of  their 
expected  Messiah,  or  deliverer  from  foreign  oppression,  as  they  inter- 
preted it.  They,  therefore,  early  began  to  figure  upon  the  application 
of  the  "  three-score  and  two  weeks,"  (434  days  taken  as  years,  Dan. 
ix:  25),  and  of  the  "seven  weeks"  (49  years),  as  well  as  the  "one 
week  "  (7 years)  and  the  whole  "70  weeks"  (490  years). 

In  their  ignorance  of  the  Persian  history,  the  Jews  of  that  day  esti- 
mated the  decree  of  Cyrus  in  his  ist  year  (Ezra  i:  i)  as  20  years  before 
the  renewal  of  it  by  Darius  in  his  2nd  year,  (Ezra  iv:  24).  This  is 
shown  by  Prideaux,  who  (at  the  year  486)  says:  "  The  Jews  have  a 
tradition,  {Abraham  Zacutus  in  Juchasin.  David  Gang  in  Zemach 
Dai'id.  Sedar  Olam  Zuta,  etc.);  and  from  that  tradition  they  reckon 
thus:  Darius  the  Median  reigned  i  year,  Cyrus  3  years  Cambyses  16 
years,  and  Darius  32  years;— and  they  tell  us  that  the  kingdom  of  the 
Persians  ceased  also  the  same  year,  and  that  the  whole  dominion  of 
the  Persian  empire  was  only  these  52  years,"  from  Cyrus  to  the  end  of 
Darius.  This  very  reckoning  is  found  in  the  modern  Jewish  chronol- 
ogy, still  followed  by  that  people.     (See  in  my  treatise  on  Diluvian 


356  RESTORATION 

Chronology,  Period  A,  B.)  Here  Cyrus  3  years  +  Cambyses  16  years 
make  20  years  to  2d  Darius,  /.  <?.,  52-32  (See  here,  at  §  30).  * 

§  II.  As  they  found  their  Priest  Record  giving  them  "414  years" 
from  the  restoration  at  2d  Darius  down  toAristobulus  (B.  C.  520  to  106),. 
reckoning  as  here  shown  from  Darius  back  to  Cyrus,  they  would  have 
the  Cyrus  decree  20  years  earlier  as  (414-1-20=)  434  years  before  Aris- 
tobulus  (as  if  in  B.  C.  540).  And  this  434  years  was  just  the  "62 
weeks  "  "from  the  going  forth  of  the  commandment  to  restore  and  to 
build,"  as  issued  by  Cyrus.  (Dan.  ix:  25,)  This,  of  course,  fired  the 
Jewish  heart,  and  led  many  to  fancy  (at  first)  that  the  time  of  Messiah 
was  arrived,  and  that  Aristobulus  in  assuming  royalty  was  the 
promised  "  king  of  the  Jews,"  who  was  to  deliver  them  from  all  for- 
eign foes.  Or,  it  may  have  been  this  enthusiastic  figuring  that  led 
Aristobulus  to  "  put  on  the  diadem,"  and  also  led  to  the  20  years  cal- 
culation from  Cyrus  to  Darius,  f 

§  12.  But  Aristobulus  was  forthwith  himself  cut  off,  with  no  great 
deliverance  following  from  his  assumption  of  the  crown;  and  faith  as 
to  his  being  a  Messiah  must  have  soon  died  out.:}:  New  figuring  of  the 
"weeks  "  had  to  be  made.  And  the  thought  arose,  that  the  same  cal- 
culation that  had  been  made  upon  "  Judas  who  was  also  called  Aris- 
tobulus "  (as  the  Priest  Record  expresses  it),  would  better  apply  to  the 
other  Judas  before,  Judas  Maccabeus;  who  did  indeed  arise  as  a  signal 
deliverer  of  the  Jews  from  the  foreign  tyrants;  and  who  became  fully 
recognized  as  their  sovereign  when  Menelaus  the  high  priest  was 
deposed  and  killed. 

§  13.  The  irregular  substitution  in  the  high-priesthood  of  the  ineli- 
gible Alcimus  by  a  foreign  invading  king.  Ant.  Eupator,  so  soon  after 
the  awful  three  years'  profanation  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  by  his 
father.  Ant.  Epiphanes,  and  the  wonderful  restoration  wrought  by 
Judas  Maccabeus,  as  a  redeemer  of  Zion;  all  this  made  a  deep  im- 
pression ever  after  on  the  Jewish  mind,  and  seemed,  when  looked  back 

*  In  accordance  with  this,  is  Josephus'  reckoning  of  the  reigns  be- 
fore Cyrus  back  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (Vs.  Ap,  I,  20):  "Neb- 
uchadnezzar (43 — 18=)  25-t-  Evil-merodach  2  yrs.  [Antiq.  i)4]  -\-  Ner- 
iglassar  4-I- Labo.  9  mo.  -\-  Nabonedus  [Baltazar]  17th  "  =47  years 
from  B.  C.  587  to  B.  C.  540  as  the  ist  year  of  Cyrus  (or  50  years  from 
B.  C.  590.)  The  same  reckoning  is  given  at  Antiq.  10  xi:  i,  2,  much 
corrupted. 

f  As  to  the  other  "  seven  weeks  "  of  Daniel's  vision,  they  may  have 
thought  of  them  as  reaching  on  after  the  accession  of  Aristobulus;  or 
else,  as  reaching  back  from  the  ist  Cyrus  49  years  to  the  si'co-e  of 
Jerusalem  at  the  end  of  B.  C  590,  — since  the  Jews  were  accustomed 
to  reckon  the  captivity  from  B.  C.  590  to  520.     (See  here,  §  30.) 

:j:  To  him  Gamaliel  may  refer,  when  he  says  (Acts  v:  36):  "For 
before  these  days  rose  up  Theudas  boasting  himself  to  be  somebody, 


OF     JOSEPHUS  357 

upon,  as  a  fulfillment,  in  part  at  least,  of  Daniel's  seventy  weeks, — 
more  so  than  the  assumption  of  royalty  by  Judas  Aristobulus,  where 
their  first  attempt  at  fixing  those  seventy  weeks  had  fastened.  And 
so,  the  ending  of  the  414  years  at  Aristobulus  was  transferred  to  Judas 
Maccabeus,  fifty-seven  years  earlier;  which  carried  the  62  weeks  or 
434  years  to  the  ist  Cyrus  back  too  far,  making  the  2nd  of  Darius  to 
be  thus  (163+414=)  577  B.  C.  or  57  years  too  early. 

This  could  be  done  notwithstanding  the  previour  correct  dating 
of  the  original  Pripst  Record,  on  account  of  the  prevalent  ignorance 
that  came  in  concerning  those  Persian  times  intervening,  as  we  have 
pointed  out.  And  so,  Josephus  got  the  Priest  Record  corrupted  to  the 
form  of  statement  which  he  has  in  it;  the  cause  being  ignorance  of  the 
Persian  period,  and  the  occasion  being  the  speculations  of  Jewish 
Rabbis  concerning  the  "  seventy  weeks."     (See  Appendix  B,  §  75.) 

§  14.  We  have  now  thoroughly  learned,  that  Josephus'  estimate  of 
the  interval  between  the  Maccabees  and  the  captivity  was  overdrawn 
by  just  the  57  years  between  B.  C.  106  and  163;  and  that  therefore  57 
years  must  be  taken  from  all  his  datings  that  reach  over  that  interval, 
in  order  to  have  his  true  Old  Testament  Chronology  without  this  ex- 
cess. Thus,  he  calls  the  time  from  Aristobulus  (B.  C.  106)  "471 
years  "  back  to  the  decree  of  the  2d  Darius,  or  his  B.  C.  577,  (see  in  ci- 
tation 2,  here  at  §  4),  which  is  57  years  more  than  the  correct  414  years 
to  B.  C.  520,     This  clinches  our  reckoning  beyond  all  dispute. 

And  we  thus  find  that  Josephus  has  the  2d  Darius  or  B.  C.  520  right, 
when  his  unwitting  excess  of  57  years  is  dropped.  So  of  all  his  Old 
Testament  dates.  What  has  been  considei'ed  by  many  as  his  jumbled 
and  senseless  method  of  reckoning,  now  becomes,  under  the  unlocking 
wrought  by  this  magic  key,  a  beautiful  system  of  correct  and  scriptural 
chronology.  And  the  Bible  has  a  most  wonderful  backing  and  confirm- 
ation in  the  datings  of  Josephus,  when  once  they  are  simply  and  ac- 
curately understood.* 

§15.  As  Josephus  has  the  Priest  Record's  "  414  years,"  reaching 
from  the  2d  Darius  down  to  "the  150th  Seleucic  year, "  or  B.  C.  163 


*  *  *  who  was  slain  *  *  *  and  brought  to  naught."  The  name  Theu- 
das  was  very  likely  the  same  as  Thaddeus,  as  Olshausen  remarks;  and 
this  latter  was  only  another  name  for  Judas,  as  we  see  in  the  case  of 
our  Lord's  disciple.  (Mark  iii:  18.)  So  that  "Judas"  Aristobulus 
may  very  possibly  be  the  "  Theudas  "  referred  to.  (See  further  in  my 
treatise  on  the  Seventy  Weeks.) 

*  Jacob  Schwartz,  a  learned  librarian  of  New  York,  having  exam- 
ined this  57-year  and  70-week  exposition  here  given,  says  of  it:  "  It  is 
a  wonderful  discovery  and  throws  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  subject  "  of 
Josephus'  chronology.     (See  his  letter.) 


358 


RESTORATION 


(when  Menelaus  was  slain),— so  he  has  7  years  less  oi"  407  yeai's  reach- 
ing down  to  "  the  143d  Seleucic  year,"  or  B.  C.  170  (when  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  captured  Jerusalem).  This  407  reached  also  from  the  B.  C. 
163  back  to  the  "9  Darius,"  where  Josephus  puts  the  finished  dedica- 
tion of  the  second  temple,  after  "seven  years  "  from  its  beginning  in 
2d  Darius.  (Antiq.  11,  iv:  7,  see  here  ^^2.)  Thus,  Josephus  has  the 
■captivity  ended  there  at  g  Darius,  viz.,  at  (B.  C.  163  +  407=)  his  570 
B.  C;  from  which  deducting  his  excess  of  57  years  we  have  B.  C.  513 
as  Josephus'  C07'rect  date  for  the  9  Darius.  In  the  same  manner  all  his 
Old  Testament  dates  are  rectified,  and  are  found  to  agree  with  script- 
ure all  the  way  back  to  the  accession  of  David. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  apply  this  result  to  Josephus'  system  of 
chronology. 


JOSEPHUS'  CHRONOLOGY  IN  THE  WAR. 

§  16.  The  main  outline  of  Josephus'  Old  Testament  chronology  is 
found  in  a  compact  form,  clear  and  intelligible,  at  the  close  of  his  first 
work,  the  "Jewish  War,"  namely,  at  6,  iv:  8,  and  6,  x:  i.  We  will  first 
give  the  two  citations  and  then  will  unfold  in  tabular  form  the  num- 
bers there  presented  in  the  light  of  what  we  have  already  learned. 

1.  "One  can  not  but  wonder  at  the  accuracy  of  the  period;  for  the 
same  month  and  day  were  now  observed,  wherein  the  holy  house  was 
burnt  formerly  by  the  Babylonians.  Now  the  number  of  years  that 
passed  from  its  first  foundation  [establishment]  which  was  laid  by  King 
Solomon  till  this  its  desti^uction,  which  happened  in  the  second 
year  of  the  reign  of  Vespasian,  are  collected  to  be  one  thousand  one 
hundred  and  thirty,  besides  seven  months  and  fifteen  days.  And  f I'om 
the  second  building  of  it,  which  was  done  [finished]  by  Haggai  in  the 
second  year  of  King  Cyrus  [corrupt  for  Darius]  till  its  destruction  un- 
der Vespasian,  there  were  six  hundred  and  thirty-nine  years  and  forty- 
five  days."     (  War.  6,  it:  S.) 

2.  "And  thus  was  Jerusalem  taken,  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign 
of  Vespasian,  on  the  8th  day  of  the  month  Gorpieus  (Elul).  It  had 
been  taken  .five  times  before.  *  *  *  The  King  of  Babylon  con- 
quered it  and  made  it  desolate,  one  thousand  four  hundred  and  sixty- 
eight  years  and  six  months  after  it  was  built  (by  Melchizedek).  How- 
ever, David,  the  king  of  the  Jews  ejected  the  Canaanites  and  settled 
his  own  people  therein.  It  was  demolished  entirely  by  the  Babylo- 
nians  four   hundred  and    seventy-seven   years   and   six  months  after 


OF     JOSEPHUS 


359 


him  [corrupted  from  470>2].*  And  from  King  David,  who  was  the 
first  of  the  Jews  who  reigned  therein,  to  the  destruction  under  Titus, 
■  were  one  thousand  one  hundred  and  seventy-nine  j-ears."  (liar 
6,  x:  I.) 

§  17.     JosEPHUs'  Intervals. 


War  6,  x:  i. 


Melchiz. 
David, 

Mel.  to  Da, 
75  Abram 

Ab.  to  Da. 
Temple, 


2177"  [>^]'Melchiz.      "2177"  VM 
1179"  [Kli Captivity,    "  i468>^  " 


980 
42 


Ab.  toTem.  "  1022 


War  6,  iv:  8. 
ist  Temp.      "1130J4" 
2d  Temp.,  "639  " 


I  Titus, 
I  David, 


709  |Tem.  to  Tern.,     491 

ii79"[/^]  Cyrus,  2c 


I  Da.  to  Cap.    "470;^  "      Temp,  to  Cy.,      471^^ 
(not  477>^) 


David, 
ist  Temp. 


1179"  ['4]  (6,  x:  I.) 
1130J4  "  (6,  iv:  8.) 


Interval,         49  years  f 


[8.     JosEPHUs'  Dates. 


/ 

(  War,  6,  .X 

••/.) 

Fall  of  Jeru. 

Fall,      A.  D 

70 

B.  C. 

■639" 

Captivity, 

Fall,      B.  C. 

570—57= 

=  513 

70         I"ii79"[i^] 

Captivity. 

Fall, 

640      " 

583 

1 
'  470;^  "  J 

David, 

Spring,    " 

IIIO       " 

1053 

42 

Temple, 

Spring,    " 

1068     " 

lOII 

'  592"  1  "  1022" 

Exodus, 

Spring,    " 

1660     " 

1603 

f  (Antiq.  8,  iii:  i.) 
'430  "J 

75  Abram, 

Spring,    " 

2090     ' ' 

2033 

18 

Melchiz. 

Spring,    " 

2108      '• 

2051  - 

2177"  VA^ 

- 

-709 

i468>^  " 

*  This  is  conceded  by  Schwartz  and  by  critics  generally. 

f  The  49  would  be  50  if  reckoned  back  from  the  dedication  at  the 
Jubilee,  with  but  490  years  after  it,  instead  of  the  491.  Josephus  here, 
m  the  War,  reckons  the  temple  as  built  from  2  years  to  g  years  of  Sol- 
omon (not  from  3  to  10),  understanding  the  "4th  of  Solomon,"  and 
tlie  "nth  of  Solomon"  in  I  Ki.  vi:  1,38,  to  include  one  year  of  reign 
with  his  father. 


360 


RESTORATION 


Titus, 

2d  Temp., 

Cyrus, 

ist  Temp. 

Fouuded, 

75  Abram, 

Melchiz. 


Fall 

Fall, 

Fall, 

Spring, 

Spring, 

Spring, 

Spring, 


A.  D. 

B.  C. 


(IFar.  6,  iv:  8.) 
70  B.  C. 

570—57=  513 


597 
106 1 
1068 
2090 
2108 


540 
1004 
ion 
2033 


"639"     1 
I 
x^  I    27         ^"1030;^^ 

11464;^     J 

7 
"  1022  "  (Ant.  8,  iii:  i. 


(See  Appendix  C,  §  80.) 


2051 


"2i77"[;^] 


§  19.     Remarks. 

Josephus  (Antiq.  11,  iv:  7)  puts  the  building  of  the  2d  temple  as 
from  2d  to  9th  Darius,  which  was  B.  C.  520  to  513  (his  B.  C.  577  to 
570).  So  here  he  has  an  excess  of  (570 — 5i3=)57  years  between  his  own 
time  and  the  2d  temple;  and  all  his  dates  B.  C.  have  to  be  lowered  57 
years. 

When  the  57  years  excess  is  taken  from  all  Josephus'  Old  Testa- 
ment numbers,  everything  is  clear  and  correct.  And  it  is  wonderful, 
that  all  his  dates  back  to  David  are  thus  found  to  be  the  accurate 
Scriptural  dates,  as  seen  in  our  Bible  Chronology;  namely,  B.  C.  513 
for  9th  Darius,  520  for  2d  Darius,  583  for  23d  Nebuchadnezzar,  1004 
for  nth  Solomon,  ion  for  4th  Solomon,  1013  for  Solomon  alone,  and 
1053  for  ist  David.  * 

I  20.  In  the  War  reckoning  above,  Josephus  gives  "  1130" — "  639" 
=)  491  years  from  Solomon's  finished  temple  to  the  end  of  70  years 
captivity.  And  we  have  found  the  Bible  Chronology  to  have  580  years 
from  Solomon's  temple  begun,  or  587  from  the  temple  finished,  back 
to  the  Exodus.  The  two  values  added  together  give  (491  +  587  =)  1078 
years  from  the  Exodus  to  the  end  of  captivity  (B.  C.  1591  to  513);  and 
this  IS  the  very  value  ("  612  "  +  "  466  "  =  )  1078  given  by  the  Priest 


*  This  true  reckoning  of  Josephus  is  traceable  in  many  authors  fol- 
lowing him.  For  instance,  the  "  Gospel  of  Nicodemus"  (written  say 
200  A.  D.)  seems  to  build  upon  Josephus  dates.  For,  one  copy  of  it 
(in  my  N.  T.  Apocrapha)  has  Josephus'  "510  fi^om  Moses  to  David  + 
500  from  David  to  the  captivity;  "  resembling  Josephus'  470  +  43  =  51.^ 
to  Cyrus.  Another  copy  of  it  (in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  Edinburgh,) 
has  Josephus'  470  from  Abram  through  Moses  +  "  511  "  to  David  (Jos. 
510)  +  "464"  to  19  Neb.  (Jos.  466)  ==  1445,— about  the  same  as  Jose- 
phus' (430  +  592  +  424th  =  )  1446th;  while  it  puts  that  19  Neb.  at  636 
B.  C,  nearly  the  same  as  Josephus'  644  B.  C.  (with  his  57  years  excess 
included).     (See  Appendix  D,  g  82.) 


OF     JOSEPHUS  361 

Record  in  Josephus'  Antiquities  (20,  x:  i),  taken  as  a  co7itinuous  dating 
of  the  high  priesthoods  from  the  official  archives  of  the  Jews.  This 
proves  the  accuracy  of  our  Bible  Chronology  as  here  given,  and  the 
correctness  of  our  interpretation  of  Josephus  in  harmony  with  it;  and 
this  links  together  the  Priegt  Record  (in  the  antiquities)  with  Josephus' 
chronology  in  the  War,  forming  a  key  to  unlock  all  the  mysteries  of 
his  dating.     (See  \  40.) 


PART  II. 

[ewish  Datings  Expounded. 


Let  us  now  examine  the  respective  dates  given  in  this  Chronology  of 
Josephus. 

JOSEPHUS'  PECULIAR  METHOD. 

\  21.  One  reason  why  Josephus'  numbers  have  been  misunder- 
stood is,  that  his  critics  have  not  noticed  a  peculiarity  of  his  method, 
in  naming  events  and  giving  their  dates.  He  has  a  way  of  looking  at 
an  epoch  as  progressive  and  cumulant,  covering  a  series  of  years  rather 
than  a  single  point.  So  that,  he  commonly  Jiaines  the  chief  event  dis- 
tinguishing an  epoch,  while  at  the  same  time  he  gives  the  date  number 
tnafki/ig  the  close  or  culmination  of  the  epoch.  In  a  word,  he  is  apt  to 
date  to  the  finished  event  rather  than  to  the  single  noted  item  of  that 
event.  Take  three  examples  of  this  peculiarity  in  his  chronology,  as 
we  have  here  given  it  from  the  War. 

§  22.  (i)  The  Finished  Temple.  Josephus  (in  citation  i,  'i  4) 
names  "its  foundation  [establishment]  which  was  laid  by  King 
Solomon;"  but  to  this  he  attaches  the  date  of  finishing  the  temple,  7 
years  later.  For  he  gives  that  later  date  ("  1130  years"  ago)  as  49 
years  after  David's  accession  to  the  throne  ("  1179  years  "  ago,  in  cita- 
tion 2).  From  which  it  is  plain  that  he  reckons  40  years  of  David, 
and  2  of  Solomon  to  the  founding,  (Solomon's  "4th  year"  being 
understood  as  including  a  joint  year  with  David,  see  I  Chron.  xxiii:  i), 
and  7  more  to  the  finishing  of  the  temple  (I  Ki.  vi:  i,  38),  total  49 
years.  This  makes  it  certain  that  Josephus  dates  to  the  finished  tem- 
ple, although  it  is  the  founding  of  the  temple  that  he  names  in  giving 
the  date.  Here  is  a  veiy  clear  case  determining  the  peculiar  method 
of  Josephus;  and  it  is  a  neglect  of  this  as  a  key  to  Josephus'  chronol- 
ogy, that  has  led  to  the  confusion  of  his  annotators  concerning  his 
reckoning. 

l  23.  (2)  The  Finished  Capturing.  Josephus  (in  citation  2) 
names  Jerusalem  as   ''coiujuered  and  made  desolate"  and   "  demol- 


362  RESTORATION 

ished "  by  Babylon,  which  plainly  points  to  "the  ig  Nebuchadnez- 
zar"  when  the  city  was  destroyed;  but  to  this  naming  of  the  most 
notable  event  of  that  epoch  he  attaches  the  date  of  "  the  23  Neb.,"  4 
years  later  (Jer.  lii:  30),  when  ^2i!oy\on  finished  its  capturing  and  com- 
pletely "made  desolate"  the  land,  so  finishittg  the  epoch  named. 
That  Josephus  is  actually  dating  to  23  Neb.  (instead  of  the  19  Neb.  of 
destruction  referred  to)  is  evident;  for  he  gives  it  as  ("2177" — 
"  1468  "=)  709  years  ago,  viz.,  (A.  D,  70  from  709yrs.=)  his  B.  C.  640, 
or  (counting  out  his  57  excess=)  the  correct  B.  C.  583,  which  is  23  Neb. 
as  in  the  Scripture.  And  here  again  is  a  plain  example  of  his  method, 
naming  the  most  notable  event,  but  dating  to  the  finished  epoch. 

§  24.  (3)  The  Finished  Captivity.  Josephus  treats  the  second 
temple  as  he  does  the  first;  and  he  dates  to  the  finished  captivity  as  he 
does  to  the  finished  capturing.  He  follows  the  old  Jewish  tradition  of 
a  delay  after  Ezra  vi:  15,  with  "  7  years"  for  finishing  the  temple  (as in 
the  case  of  Solomon),  so  that  the  dedicating  was  not  complete  till 
"  the  9  Darius,"  as  he  says  (Antiq.  11,  iv:  7).  Thus,  while  he  dates 
'CiXQ  finished  capturing  at  B.  C.  583  (by  means  of  his  "  709  "),  he  puts  in 
the  next  70  years  as  a  finished  captivity  at  B.  C.  513  (by  means  of  his 
"639").  And  so  we  see,  that  Josephus  consistently  carries  out  his 
peculiar  method  (of  finality  dating)  at  all  these  epochs.  *  Such  sys- 
temized  chronal  numbering  (with  the  accompanying  double  f'ecko>ii)ig, 
(see  I  29),  suited  the  Jewish  mind.  And  when  we  put  this  peculiarity 
along  with  the  57  years  excess  of  Josephus,  we  have  most  of  the 
mysteries  of  his  Chronology  cleared  up. 

THE  "70  YEARS"  CAPTIVITY. 

§  25.  In  getting  at  the  captivity  reckoning  of  Josephus,  there  are 
three  parties  concerned,  viz.,  the  original  Priest  Record,  the  continu- 
ator  of  the  Priest  Record,  and  Josephus  himself. 

(I.)  The  original  P>iest  Record  of  the  Jews  ended  the  70  years 
captivity  at  9  Darius,  the  Jubilee  year.  For  thus  it  gives  the  correct 
Scripture  dating,  viz.,  "  612-I-466  "=1078  years  (22  Jubilee  periods) 
from  the  Exodus  in  B.  C.  1591  to  the  9  Darius  in  B.  C.  513;  that  is, 
1078  minus  (5804-8  of  the  first  temple,  or)  588=490  years  (10  Jubilee 
intervals)  from  temple  to  temple,  B.  C.  1003  to  513,  the  traditional 
Jubilee  years  for  both  dedications  complete.  Moreover,  Josephus  in 
the  War  gives  this  same  490  years  from  B.  C.  1003  to  513.     (See  §  18.) 

§  26.  (2)  But  the  conti?tuator  oi  the  Priest  Record,  who  (about  B. 
C.  100)  appended  to  it  the  "414  years  "  down  to  B.  C.  106,  began  them 
at  B.  C.  520,  the  2  Darius,  -supposing  the  previous  "466"  to  end 
there  (instead  of  beginning  407  years  from  9  Darius,  as  he  might  have 


See  an  example  at  §  86,  and  I  53,  and  §  35,  note. 


OF     JOSEPHUS 


363 


done).  This  makes  an  apparent  excess  of  7  years  in  the  Priest  Record 
taken  as  a  continuous  whole;  viz.,  612  +  466  +  414  "=1492,  instead  of 
the  correct  "  612  +  466" +407=1485  years  from  the  Exodus  in  B.  C. 
1591  to  the  royalty  in  B.  C.  106.      (For  this  correct  1591,  see  Period  D, 

I  7.) 

Thus  the  466  was  treated  as  reaching  from  2  Darius  back  to  25  (in- 
stead of  32)  years  of  Solomon's  temple.  But  when  the  continuator 
construed  the  Priest  Record's  "612  years"  of  high-priests  as  reaching 
to  the- death  of  Zadok  as  at  20  years  (instead  of  32)  after  the  founding 
of  Solomon's  temple  in  B.  C.  loii,— he  thus  had  (20  +  466=)  486  years 
after  that  founding,  to  B.  C.  525  for  the  death  of  Jozadek;  which  was  5 
years  before  the  second  temple  began  in  B.  C.  520,  where  the  continu- 
ator put  the  70  years'  captivity  as  ending.  By  this  means  the  continu- 
ator had  ("  612"— 2o=)592  years  from  the  Exodus  to  the  4th  of 
Solomon,  as  Demetrius  had  already  (in  B.  C.  220)  reckoned  it.  The 
466  thus  became  (466+5=)  471  to  2  Darius  and  (+20=)  491  from  4  Sol. 
(as  at  §  17  18);  which  in  the  Antiq.  are  470  and  490.  (See  §  51.) 
But  he  thus  had  the  Priest  Record  distorted  twelve  years;  viz.,  the  five 
years  which  would  carry  that  record  to  the  2  Darius,  p/us  the  seven 
years  more  which  it  actually  reached  to  the  9  Darius.  And  this  twelve 
years  deficiency  was  offset  by  the  twelve  years  excess  which  the  con- 
tinuator allowed  at  the  4th  of  Solomon,  ("592  "+20=612,  instead  of  the 
original  "  580  "+32=612.     See  D,  §  62). 

And  so,  the  method  of  reckoning  the  seventy  years  captivity  be- 
came changed  (about  100  B.  C),  from  the  original  counting  of  it  as 
from  B.  C.  583  to  513,  to  the  new  counting  of  it  as  from  B.  C.  590  to  520; 
that  is,  it  was  now  put  as  reaching  from  the  begi7i7iing  of  the  siege  in 
the  16  Neb.  to  the  beginning  of  the  temple  in  the  2  Darius,  instead  of 
the  previous  putting,  from  ihe  finished  capturing  in  the  23  Neb.  to  the 
finished  tem-gle  as  dedicated  in  the  9  Darius.  , 

^  27.  (3)  Josephiis'  Chronology,  given  in  his  first  work,  the  Jewish 
War,  ollows  the  original  Priest  Record's  reckoning  of  the  seventy 
years  captivity,  as  ending  at  the  9  Darius;  but  he  uses  after  the  Exodus 
the  "592"  of  the  continuator  (and  of  Demetrius),  instead  of  the  Priest 
Record's  correct  580  (z.  e.  580+32+466=1078).  And  he  retains  the 
established  tradition  of  490  years  from  dedication  to  dedication  in  the 
Jubilee  years  B.  C.  1003  to  513  (z.  e.,  491  from  B.  C.  1004)— which  was 
really  in  the  Priest  Record  (though  he  saw  it  not  therein).  By  this 
combination,  Josephus  has  twelve  years  longer  chronology  than  the 
Priest  Record's  correct  reckoning;  viz.  (592+8  temp.  +490=)  1090 years 
from  B.  C.  1603  to  513,  instead  of  the  true  (580+8  temp.  +490=)io78 
years  from  B.  C.  1591  to  513.  And  in  the  War  he  uses,  not  the  "414 
years  "  of  the  Priest  Record,  but  this  value  reduced  seven  years  (to 
correct  the  coutinuator's  change  from  9  to  2  Darius),  viz.,  407  years 
from  B.  C.  513  to  106. 


«>04  RESTORATION 

Thus,  leaving  out  his  57  years  excess  (in  changing  106  to  163),  we 
have  Josephus'  Chronology  as  follows:  B.  C.  106+407=6.  C.  513+70= 
B.  C.  583+421=6.  C.  1004+ 7=B.  C.  loii.  And  all  these  are  the  very 
dates  which  Josephus  correctly  gives,  as  we  see  at  ^  18.  His  only 
error  (besides  the  57)  is  the  twelve  excess  of  his  592  over  the  true  580 
back  to  the  Exodus. 

§  28.  We  have  in  Josephus'  Antiquities  the  plain  evidence  that  he 
followed  an  established  Jewish  tradition,  putting  the  seventy  years 
captivity  from  the  23  Neb.  to  the  9  Darius,  z.  e.,  from  B.  C.  583  to  513, 
— and  that  in  this  he  was  no  doubt  following  the  original  reckoning  of 
the  Priest  Record. 

(i)  As  to  the  9  Darius,  B.  C.  513,  Josephus  says  (Antiq.  11,  iv:  7): 
"Now  the  temple  was  built  in  seven  years'  time;  and  in  the  gth  year 
of  the  reign  of  Darius,  on  the  23d  day  of  the  12th  month,  which  is  by 
us  called  Adar,  the  priests  and  Levites,  and  the  other  multitude  of  the 
Israelites  offered  sacrifices,  as  t/w  renovation  of  their  former  posterity 
after  their  captivity,  and  because  they  had  now  the  temple  rebuilt." 
This  language  shows  that  this  year  was  regarded  as  the  date  of  full 
"restoration"  from  "captivity"  and  of  the  reinstated  high-priesthood, 
with  a  now  fully  established  " democratical  government."  And  in 
accordance  with  this,  Josephus  gives  "639  years  "  back  to  the  restored 
temple  (War,  6,  iv:  8),  /.  ^.,  639 — 70  A.  D.=570  B.  C,  minus  Josephus' 
excess  57=B.  C.  513  or  9  Darius.  This  9  Darius  began  in  Dec.  B.  C. 
514;  so  that  the  finishing  of  the  temple  is  put  in  "Adar  "  (or  March)  of 
B.  C.  513.  Thei^e  must  have  been  an  established  tradition  that,  after 
Ezra  vi:  15,  the  dedicating  was  delayed  (as  in  the  case  of  Solomon)  to 
reach  the  Jubilee  year. 

I  29.  (2)  As  to  the  23  Nebuchadnezzar,  B.  C.  583.  This  is  given 
in  Jer.  Hi:  26,  30,  as  the  date  when  the  capturing  of  the  Jews  by  Baby- 
lon was  finished.  And  Josephus  (Antiq.  10,  ix:  7)  recites  it  thus:  "On 
the  5th  year  [four  full  years]  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which 
was  the  23d  [beginning]  of  the  reign  of  Neb.,  he  made  an  expedition 
against  Coetosyria,  and  made  war  against  the  Ammonites  and  Moabites, 
and  fell  upon  Egypt,  *  *  *  and  he  took  those  Jews  that  were  cap- 
tives, and  led  them  away  to  Babylon."  (See  Jer.  xliv:  14,  30.)  No 
doubt  captives  were  taken  at  this  time  from  Judea  as  well  as  from 
Egypt.  (So  say  Scott,  Fausset,  and  other  expositors.)  It  is  at  this 
point  that  Josephus  makes  comparison  and  gives  the  interval  back  to 
the  finished  capturing  of  the  ten  tribes.  And  from  this  finish  of  the 
capturing  in  B.  C.  583,  he  evidently  begins  his  seventy  years  for  the 
captivity  down  to  B.  C.  513.     (See  Appendix  E,  \  87.) 

We  have  thus  made  it  plain,  that  Josephus  reckoned  the  seventy 
years,  like  the  original  Priest  Record,  from  B.  C.  583  to  513.  And  we 
have  seen  just  now,  how  the  continuator  of  the  Priest  Record  changed 
the  reckoning  seven  year,  to  end  at  2  Darius  in  B.  C.  520.  with  the 


OF    JOSEPHUS  365 

seventy  years  before  at  B.  C.  590,  the  beginning  of  the  siege  in  8  Zede- 
kiah  (Jer.  xxxvii:  5,  and  xxxix:  i).  Thus  (about  B.  C.  100),  there  had 
come  to  be  among  the  Jews  these  two  reckonings  of  the  captivity— one 
from  finished  capturing  to  finished  dedication,  the  other  from  siege 
begun  to  temple  begun.*  Such  double  reckoning  of  epochs  was  a 
favorite  method  with  the  Jews,  as  pointed  out  elsewhere.  (See  'i  24, 
etc.)  The  exacter  dating,  from  destruction  to  reconstruction  of  the 
temple,  was  between  these  two  reckonings,  viz.,  from  B.  C.  587  to  516. 
g  30.  We  have  seen  (at  §  10)  how,  before  B.  C.  100,  there  had  come 
in  a  reckoning  of  the  Cyrus  decree  as  twenty  years  before  the  Darius 
decree  of  B.  C.  520.  This  brought  i  Cyrus  in  B.  C.  540,  or  50  years 
after  the  beginning  of  the  siege  in  B.  C.  590.  T^hus  the  double-dating 
of  the  captivity  went  as  follows: 

B.  C.     Interval. 
16  Neb.  begin,  of  siege 590     '\  ist  2nd 

—  7  I 

23  Neb.  completed  capturing 583      \  g,  ] 

I  Cyrus 540      I        I  R. 

— 20  I        I    ■ 
Decree  of  2  Dainus 520  | 

—  7         J 
Dedication  of  g  Darius 513 

Josephus  in  the  war  ends  the  70  years  at  the  original  Priest  Record's 
B.  C.  513  (the  terminus  of  his  "639,"  or  407  years  before  B.  C.  106.) 
Eusebius,  following  Josephus,  ends  the  70  years  at  the  B.  C.  520  of  the 
Priest  Record  continuator,  with  the  414  instead  of  the  407  from  B.  C. 


*  Besides  these  two  reckonings  of  the  seventy  years  in  his  system- 
ized  chronology,  Josephus  was  aware  of  one  or  two  other  reckonings 
of  the  70.  Thus  in  Antiq.  11,  i:  i,  he  gives  "  the  70th  year "  before 
Cyrus,  as  recognized  by  Daniel  (ix:  2,  and  Jer.  xxv:  i,  11,  12);  which, 
with  his  ist  Cyrus  put  at  B.  C.  540,  will  begin  the  captivity  at  the  ist 
instead  of  the  4th  Jehoiakim  (B.  C.  609  instead  of  606),  when  Josiah 
was  shun,  and  Jehoahaz  was  captured  by  Pharaoh  Necho  of  Egypt. 
(II  Ki.  .wiii:  29,  34;  II  Chron.  36:  3,  4;  Aiitiq.  10,  v:  i,  2.)  In  this  vic- 
tory (if  Nfclio  (i-ecorded  by  Heroditus)  on  the  way  to  the  Euphrates, 
some  captives  from  Josiah,  fleeing  away,  may  have  got  carried  to 
Babylonia;  so  that  Josephus  there  mentions  Jeremiah's  prophesy  of 
the  captivity  (10,  v:  i). 

Josephus  thus  had  just  fifty  years  from  Cyrus  back  to  Nebuchadnez- 
zar's devastation,  reckoned  as  B.  C.  590  to  540  (and  by  some  Jews  from 
B.  C.  583  to  533).  He  seems  even  to  have  had  correctly  the  fifty  years 
from  B.  C.  587  to  537.  For  he  says  expi^essly  (Vs.  Ap.  i:  21):  "  Nebu- 
chadnezzar laid  our  temple  desolate;  and  so  it  lay  in  that  state  of 
oh?:CA\x\\.y  for  fifty  ye a^s:  but  in  the  2d  year  of  the  reign  of  Cyrus  its 
foundations  were  laid,"  etc.  (For  the  "  2d  year."  See  Ezra  iii:  8,  10. 
He  thus  understood  B.  C.  537  as  "  the  70th  "  year  from  B.  C.  606.  See 
Period  F,  <i  15.) 


366  RESTORATION 

io6.  For  Eusebius  says  (Hist.  B.  I.,  p.  178),  "  Aristobulus  took  the 
diadem  in  the  year  484,  after  the  Babylonish  captivity;"'  that  is  414+ 
70,  from  B.  C.  106  to  520,  and. then  to  590  B.  C,  as  the  beginning  of 
captivity.  (See  I  24.)  This  shows  that  neither  the  "414"  nor  the 
"  639  "  of  Josephus  went  back  to  i  Cyinis  (as  many  allege);  a  point 
which  we  proceed  to  discuss. 

The  Priest  Record's  "414  Years." 

?  31.  We  have  all  the  way  argued  that,  while  the  original  Priest 
Record's  "466  years  "  reached  down  to  the  end  of  captivity  as  at  the  9 
Darius,  on  the  other  hand,  the  continuator  of  the  Priest  Record  (and 
Josephus)  applied  thft  added  *'4i4  years"  as  from  the  2  Darius, 
changing  from  the  original  by  these  7  years.  On  the  contrary  most 
writers  have  claimed  that  the  "414  yvavs"  were  reckoned  /;v);;/  / 
Cyrus,  not  from  2  Darius;  and  by  this  means  th^y  have  been  kept 
from  seeing  the  secret  of  Josephus"  chronology  in  his  57  years  excess, 
as  we  have  exhibited  it.  It  becomes  necessary,  therefore,  for  us  here 
to  set  forth  clearly  the  state  of  the  case.  Cyrus  or  Darius  ?  That  is 
the  question. 

The  only  clear  argument  for  i  Cyrus  as  the  starting  point  of  the 
"414  years  "  in  citation  i  here  at  ^  4  (from  Ant.  20,  x:  i),  is  the  "  408 
years  "  in  citation  4  (from  Ant.  12,  vii:  6).  The  argument  is  this:  The 
"414"  must  be  from  i  Cyrus  to  150  Seleucic  (or  B.  C.  163),  because 
the  "408  "  (as  408th  or  407  full  years)  is  put  from  3  Cyrus  (Dan.  x:  i 
with  xi:  31)  to  145  Seleucic  (or  B.  C.  168),  /.  c,  from  the  vision  of 
Daniel  to  the  desolation  by  Antiochus. 

^32.  But  this  makes  the  "408  years""  mean  the  408th  year,  or 
only  407  full  years;  and  as  such  it  may  be  only  a  reflection  of  the  407 
years  which  Josephus  himself  puts  from  9  Darius  to  150  Seleucic,  /.  t\, 
the  414  minus  the  7  from  2  to  9  Darius  (see  §  15).  He  is  speaking  of 
the  "desolation"  wrought  by  Antiochus,  which  he  begins  with  his 
capturing  of  Jerusalem  in  "  143  Seleucic  "  (Ant.  12.  v:  3),  7  years  be- 
foi"e  his  terminus  of  the  "  414  "  years  "  in  "150  Seleucic  '"  (Ant.  12,  ix: 
3,  5,  7).  So  that  he  naturally  names  the  "desolation"  as  the  408th 
year,  or  407  years  (/.  c,  the  414  minus  the  7  from  143  to  150  Seleucic), 
looking  back  to  the  same  2  Darius,  when  the  rebuilding  decree  (as 
Josephus  understood  it)  set  forward  the  70  week  prophecy  of  Daniel, 
as  a  "  going  forth  of  the  commandment  to  restore.""  (Dan.  ix:  25.) 
He  may  be  dating  not  so  much  from  the  -I'lsioii  as  from  "  the  p?vp/tc'cy 
of  Daniel,  which  was  given  (or  was  going  forth)  tlje  408th  year  before" 
Antiochus'  "desolation"  of  Jerusalem  began.    (See  F,  ^  9,  note.) 

'i2)d)-  Or,  the  "408  years "  may  be  a  corruption  for  428.  As  we 
have  shown  (here  I  11),  that  Josephus  ret^ardi'd  the  "  414  years  "  back 
to  2   Darius  as  giving  434   years   (or   "sixty-two   weeks")  back   to   i 


OF    JOSEPHUS  367 

Cyrus,  therefore,  from  Daniel's  "vision"  2  years  later  to  the  "deso- 
lation" 5  years  earlier,  would  be  7  years  less  than  534,  or  the  528th 
year.  The  middle  figure  2  may  have  dropped  out  accidentally;  or 
some  editor,  supposing  Josephus'  414  went  to  i  Cyrus  (as  so  many  have 
thought),  may  have  made  this  change  as  a  supposed  correction  of 
Josephus' number.  At  any  rate,  the  "408  "is  no  insuperable  objec- 
tion to  our  view. 

^  34.  On  the  other  hand,  in  offset  to  that  undecisive  argument, 
we  have  given  positive  proofs,  that  the  "414"  and  the  "408th"  (or 
407),  both  being  reckoned  back  to  the  close  of  captivity,  and  differing 
only  7  years,  )mist  refer  to  2  Darius  and  to  9  Darius,  two  dates  which 
Josephus  himself  carefully  distinguishes.  It  must  be  so,  because  there 
are  no  other  two  dates  seven  years  apart  to  which  he  can  refer.  To 
maintain  (as  does  Schwartz),  that  Josephus,  while  following  the  Priest 
Record  as  his  own,  yet  in  the  war  changes  its  "414"  years  to  407, 
using  both  as  referring  to  i  Cyrus  /—this  is  a  charge  of  absurdity  on 
Josephus'  part  too  gross  to  be  believed. 

Josephus  makes  up  his  full  chronology  in  the  War.  (See  §  16.)  And 
he  reckons  it  thus:  From  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  in  A.  D.  70,  he  has 
the  "107th"  year  to  Herod's  accession  in  B.  C.  37,  and  then  "  126 
years  "  to  the  death  of  Menelaus  in  B.  C.  163.  (See  F,  I  5);  and  then 
"407  years"  to  the  "9  Darius"  in  his  B.  C.  570,  or  (deducting  his  57 
years  in  excess)  in  B.  C.  513.  Thus  he  has  (io7th+i264-407=)  his 
"639"  years  back  to  the  time  when  "the  second  building  of  the 
temple  was  done.''  (War,  6,  iv:  8),  not  back  to  i  Cyrus,  when  no  tem- 
ple was  built.  This  is  positive  proof  that  "  the  second  year  of  Cyrus" 
found  there  in  the  present  text  is  a  corruption  for  "second  year  of 
Darius,  meaning  built  from  2  Darius  onward."  It  was  "  done  by  (or 
under)  Haggai,"  he  says;  and  neither  does  he  nor  the  Scripture  recog- 
nize Haggai  as  present  till  the  time  of  Darius.  (Antiq.  11,  i:  to  iv:  7; 
Ezra  v:  i;  Hag.  i:  i.) 

'i  35.  Thus  certain  is  it,  that  Josephus  in  the  War  lays  out  his  full 
Old  Testament  chronology,  from  Darius  (not  Cyrus)  as  his  starting 
point.  And  in  his  later  work,  the  Antiquities,  he  only  uses  the  "414 
years"  of  the  Priest  Record  instead  of  the  407,  reaching  2  Darius  in- 
stead of  9  Darius,  or  (B.  C.  163-1-414=)  577,  instead  of  (B.  C.  163+407 
=)  570,  /.  <?.,  (minus  his  57  excess=)  B.  C.  520  instead  of  513.  The 
language  giving  the  "414  years"  (see  citation  i,  p.  3),  indicates  Da- 
rius, though  at  first  glance  it  looks  as  if  pointing  to  Cyrus  (as  so  many 
think).  His  expression  "  at  which  time"  has  a  wide  iinport,  covering 
the  whole  period  from  the  Cyrus  to  the  Darius  decree;  and  he  ex- 
pressly dates  the  "414  years  of  democratical  government''  from  the 
time  when  "Jesus  the  son  of  Jozedek  took  the  high-priesthood  over 
the  captives  when  they  were  returned  home,"  by  which  last  expres- 
sion J(js(!])hus  means  the  time  of  Darius. 


ODO  RESTORATION 

For,  there  was  no  settled  "■  govern7netit"'  till  then  for  them  to  be 
under,  and  Josephus  knows  nothing  of  the  high-priest  Jesus  till  then. 
In  this  part  of  his  history  he  does  not  follow  our  canonical  Ezra,  but 
the  whole  of  Ezra  ii:  i,  to  iv:  6,  he  transfers  till  after  "the  2d  Darius  " 
at  Ezra  v:  i  (viz.,  at  his  Antiq.  11,  iii:  i,  through  ch.  iv).  Until  which 
2d  of  Darius  he  has  no  mention  of  "Jesus,"  or  "  Jeshua"  (viz.,  at  ch.  iii: 
I,  and  iv:  i.  Thus,  the  seeming  start  of  the  "414  years  "  from  Cyrus, 
turns  out  to  be,  by  Josephus'  own  account,  a  start  from  Darius,  where 
alone  he  recognizes  "Jesus,"  or  "Jeshua,"  as  "  taking  the  high-priest- 
hood over  the  captives  when  they  were  returned  home.''  - 

I  36.  Moreover,  the  very  fact  that  70  years  are  given  between 
Nebuchadnezzar's  desolating  and  the  "  639  "  or  407  of  the  War  (the  649 
or  "414"  of  the  Antiquities),  proves  that  these  latter  datings  are  to 
Darius  and  not  to  Cyrus.  Josephus  says:  "  2177  " — "  1468  "=709  years 
minus  the  "639  "^70  years.  (War,  6,  x:  i.)  But  he  expressly  asserts 
(Ap.  I,  21),  that  there  were  but  "fifty  years"  between  the  desolation 
by  Neb.  and  Cyrus.  In  Book  11  of  the  Antiquities  (see  the  caption 
dating)  but  50  of  the  70  years  are  put  before  Cyrus;  how  then  could 
Book  20  (ch.  x)  of  the  same  work  mean  to  give  the  whole  70  years 
crowded  into  the  50  years, space?  Josephus  has  no  such  mixed-up  ab- 
surdities as  are  thus  ascribed  to  him  by  Schwartz  and  others,  f 

The  proof  seems  unmistakable;  and,  on  the  whole,  we  feel  well 
assured  that  the  two  datings  of  Josephus,  both  to  the  end  of  the  cap- 
tivity, yet  7  years  different,  refer  not  both  to  i  Cyrus,  but  the  one  to  2 
Darius  and  the  other  to  9  Darius. 

The  Priest  Record's  "466  Years." 

^  37-  We  have  all  the  way  argued  that  the  original  Priest  Record's 
"466  years"  reached  down  to  the  9  Darius,  or  B.  C.  513.  But  this 
could  not  be  with  the  language  now  found  in  the  Priest  Record,  which 
reads  thus  (Antiq.  20,  x:  i):  "Eighteen  high-priests  took  the  high- 
priesthood  at  Jerusalem,  one  in  succession  to  another,  from  the  days 
of  King  Solomon  until  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon,  made  an  expe- 
dition against  that  city,  and  burned  the  temple,  and  removed  our 
nation  into  Babylon,  and  then  took  Jozedek,  the  high-priest  captive; 

*  Josephus  (in  Antiq.  11,  iv:  7)  says,  "the  temple  was  built  in  seven 
years  time,"  being  finished  "in  the  9th  year  of  Darius."  Yet  (in  Vs. 
Ap.  i:  21)  he  says:  "  In  the  reign  of  Cyrus  its  foundations  were  laid, 
and  it  •wa.s  finished  again  in  the  2d  year  of  Darius,"  /.  e.,  finished  in  the 
2d  to  gth  of  Darius.  "This  shows  clearly  Josephus'  peculiar  method  of 
cumulant  or  finality  dating  (see  I  21),  and  proves  unmistakably  that 
when  (in  the  War,  6,  iv:  8)  we  read,  "The  second  building  of  the  tem- 
ple was  done  in  the  2d  year  of  Cyrus  [Darius]  the  king,  " — the  meaning 
is  "it  was  done  in  the  2d  to  gth  year  of  Darius." 

f  See  Appendix  F,  l  89. 


OF     JOSEPHUS  369 

the  time  of  these  high-priests  was  four  hundred  and  sixty-six  years 
(six  months  and  ten  days),  wliile  tlic  Jews  we}r  still  under  ike  7rgal gin'- 
ernment.  But  after  the  term  of  70  years  captivity  under  the  Babylon- 
ians, Cyrus  sent  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  and  Jesus,  the  son  of  Jozedek, 
took  the  high  priesthood  over  the  captives  when  they  were  returned 
home." 

§  38.  Our  idea  is,  that  the  original  Priest  Record  went  no  far- 
ther than  this;  and  that,  when  the  subsequent  part  was  appended 
(about  B.  C.  100),  some  change  was  made  in  joining  the  two  pails  to- 
gether, in  order  to  fit  the  addition  to  the  closing  portion  of  the  original 
above;  particulai'ly  in  the  clause  we  have  italicised.  So  that,  in  our 
view;  the  original  read  somewhat  thus:  " —  four  hundred  sixty-six 
years,  until  tJie  Jeuus  were  established  under  a  deinocratical government, 
after  the  term  of  seventy  years  captivity.  But  Cyrus,"  etc.  We  have 
already  shown  (§  35),  that  the  re-establishment  of  high-priesthood 
under  "  a  democratical  government  is  here  assigned  as  under  Darius. 
And  we  now  add,  that  when  the  continuator  had  so  stated  in  what  he 
has  appended, — to  avoid  a  repetition  of  the  same  expression  "under 
a  democratical  government,"  he  struck  that  clause  from  the  original 
reading  and  substituted  the  present  text,  which  agrees  with  the  con- 
tinuator's  idea  of  the  original  intent. 

§  39.  Now  look  over  the  original  as  thus  restored.  It  expressly 
starts  the  priesthood  of  the  "  466  years  "  as  being  "  from  the  days  of 
king  Solomon,"  which  seems  to  exclude  a  large  part  of  Solomon's 
reign;  and  it  ends  the  "466  years"  with  the  changed  "democratical 
government,"  as  a  marked  epoch  proper  for  beginning  a  new  number- 
ing; while  the  "  70  years  captivity"  are  included  as  a  finish  of  the  "466 
years  "period;  at  whose  beginning  "the  government  was  regal,"  as 
previously  declared  by  the  original  Priest  Record  itself.  Moreover,  it 
includes  "18  high-priests,"  which  necessitates  the  numbering  of 
"  Jeshua  son  of  Jozedek  "  with  the  rest.  (For  Josephus  gives  the  list, 
at  Antiq.  10,  viii:  6,  and  he  has  after  Zadock,  who  closes  the  previous 
period,  only  17  high-priests  befoie  Jeshua,  even  including  Azariah 
after  Hilkiah,  from  I  Chron.  vi:  13,  14,  whom  he  has  omitted.) 

'i  40.  But  here  it  will  be  asked,  did  not  the  original  Priest  Record 
have  this  "466  years  "  thus  ending  at  2  (not  9)  Darius,  just  as  the  con- 
tinuator naturally  understood  it  to  mean,  as  we  concede?  In  reply  we 
say:  Our  reason  for  thinking  9  Darius  (not  2  Darius)  to  have  been  or- 
iginally intended,  is  (i)  that  thus  it  gives  the  right  scriptural  interval 
of  time.  We  are  assured  that  the  Bible  is  correct  in  giving  (as  it  does) 
a  total  of  1078  years  from  the  Exodus  to  the  9  Darius  (as  B.  C.  1591  to 
513).  And  tire  presumption  is,  that  the  original  official  Priest  Record 
of  the  Jews  has  that  same  correct  biblical  interval,  when  it  gives  a  total 
of  (6I2-^-466==)I078  also.     We  so  think  (2)  because  the  total  1078  of  the 


370  RESTORATION 

Priest  Record  is  plainly  meant  for  a  Jubilee  interval;  it  being  just  22 
times  49,  or  22  Jubilee  periods,  doubtless  meant  to  reach  from  the  Ex- 
odus Jubilee  (B.  C.  1591)  to  the  Jubilee  of  9  Darius  (B.  C.  513)  just 
after  the  second  temple  was  built;  (as  12  Jubilee  periods  ended  in  B.  C. 
1003,  just  after  the  first  temple  was  built.) 

^  41.  Scripture  does  not  tell  us  about  Jozedek  being  carried  to 
Babylon.  And  when  Josephus  mentions  it  (at  Antiq.  10,  viii:  6)  in  his 
catalogue  of  priests,  he  merely  speaks  of  him  as  "  the  son  of  Seriah  " 
(who  was  then  high-priest,  see  II  Ki.  xxv:  18),  probably  a  boy,  "car- 
ried captive  to  Babylon  "  he  says,  not  telling  when.  And  (at  Antiq.  20, 
x:  i)  we  merely  read:  "The  king  of  Babylon  made  an  expedition 
against  the  city,  and  burned  the  temple,  and  removed  our  nation  into 
Babylon,  and  then  took  Jozedek  captive";  and  then,  i.  f.,  at  the  very 
end  of  all.  Here  is  a  catalogue  of  Neb.'s  doings,  and  the  "then  "  evi- 
dently means,  not  at  the  expedition,  not  at  the  temple  burning,  but  at 
the  completion  of  all,  the  taking  captive,  which  Josephus  treats  as  ac- 
complished fully  at  23  Neb.,  as  we  saw  before  (§  23).  The  truth  may 
be,  that  the  original  records  thus  treated  his  capture  as  closing  up 
their  disasters,  (as  Josephus  says,  Antiq.  10;  ix:  7,  "the  end  of  the  na- 
tion "),  with  the  capturing  of  the  boy  Jozedek,  the  heir  to  official  au- 
thority being  thus  gone  at  last;  though  left  as  an  unnoticed  youth  be- 
fore, just  as  the  "daughters  of  Zedekiah  "  were  left.  (Antiq.  10,  ix: 
4.)  Thus  treating  the  capture  of  Jozedek,  the  original  Priest  Record 
would  naturally  add  the  70  years  captivity  down  to  the  Jubilee  at  B.  C. 
513,  as  the  epoch  of  full  deliverance,  according  to  tradition. 

§  42.  But  it  is  plain  that  the  continuator  of  the  Priest  Record  took 
it  as  reaching  only  to  2  Darius;  and  Josephus  may  have  looked  upon 
the  "  466  years  "  as  not  including  the  captivity,  but  as  ending  at  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Viewed  in  that  light,  the  "466  years  "  reach 
back,  by  correct  scripture  reckoning  agreeing  with  his,  to  the  acces- 
sion of  David  exactly,  /.  e.,  from  B.  C.  587  to  1053.  This  makes  the 
Priest  Record  as  a  whole  to  be  not  continicotcs  chronology,  but  having 
&  gap  at  the  captivity  and  an  overlap  upon  the  "612."  And  if  the  gap 
and  the  overlap  be  alike,  each  74  yrs.,  /.  c.,  from  B.  C.  513  to  587,  and 
from  32  years  after  to  42  years  before  the  founding  of  Solomon's  tem- 
ple, then  the  correct  scriptural  chronology  is  still  in  the  Priest  Record; 
and  it  simply  furnishes  a  specimen  of  that  double  reckoning  so  popular 
with  the  Jews.     (See  g  24,  29,  etc.) 

That  is,  "the  466  years,  while  reaching  as  we  have  argued  from 
Zadok's  death  to  9  Darius  (B.  C.  979  to  513),  reached  also  from  David's 
accession  to  19  Neb.  (B.  C.  1053  to  587).  And  the  language  of  the 
Priest  Record  is  somewhat  mixed,  as  if  (purposely)  to  fit  in  part  the 
one,  in  part  the  other  reckoning. 

(Note.  That  the  later  placing  of  the  "466"  as  contimious  after 
the  whole  "612  "  is  included  in  the  reckoning,  is  evident  from  the  ex- 


OF     JOSEPHUS  371 

press  statement,  that  it  reached  "from  the  days  of  King  Solomon" 
(Antiq.  20,  x:  i),  not  from  King  David).  This  view  of  the  original 
"466  years  "  as  a  scripturally  correct  but  two-fold  dating,  is  certainly 
more  rational  than  the  current  theories,  that  make  this  ancient  and 
seemingly  official  Record  of  priesthoods  to  be  entirely  discordant  with 
correct  Bible  chronology. 

§43.  Schwartz  thinks  the  "466  years"  end  at  19  Neb.,  but 
reach  back  only  to  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  David  after  7  years  of 
reign,  rather  than  to  his  accession.  This  violates  all  the  Bible  chro- 
nology by  7  years,  making'the  accession  of  David  B.  C.  1060,  the  found- 
ing of  the  temple  B.  C.  1018,  with  431  years  (instead  of  424)  thence  to 
B.  C.  587.  We  think  it  more  likely  that  this  original  document  was 
biblically  right. 

Josephus,  using  his  peculiar  method  oi  finality  reckoning  (see  ^  21), 
preferred  to  say  "  470  years  "  to  the  finished  capturing  B.  C.  583,  in- 
stead of  the  "466  years  "  to  the  destruction  of  the  city,  B.  C.  587.  * 
And  this  "470  years"  is  the  interval  that  he  uses  in  his  Chronology  in 
the  War,  as  we  have  seen.  This  is  still  correct  reckoning,  though 
carried  to  a  different  point.  Then  adding  the  70  years  captivity,  he 
has  (470  +  70=  )  540  years  to  9  Darius,  and  leaving  off  David's  reign 
he  has  (540—40  =  )  500  years  from  the  (joint)  accession  of  Solomon  in 
B.  C.  1013,  or  (500— 9  =  )  491  years  from  9  years  of  Solomon  at  B.  C. 
1004  (/.  c,  490  years  or  10  Jubilee  periods  between  the  two  temple  dedi- 
cations.)    Thus  all  his  chronology  harmonizes. 

The  Priest  Record's  "612  Years." 

\  44.  We  have  all  the  way  argued,  that  the  original  Priest  Rec- 
ord's "  612  years  "  extend  to  the  death  of  Zadok,  32  years  after  the 
founding  of  the  temple;  leaving  580  years  back  to  the  Exodus,  which 
we  show  to  be  the  true  Scripture  reckoning.  (See  Period  D.)  But 
Josephus,  taking  the  612  as  reaching  but  20  years  after  the  founding  of 
the  temple,  put  592  (instead  of  580)  back  to  the  Exodus.  The  manner 
of  his  making  this  mistake,  we  show  in  our  "Origin  of  the  '480th 
year'  reading,"  (D,  §  69).  Schwartz  and  others  think  the  whole  "612 
years  "  wei^e  gut  between  the  Exodus  and  the  founding  of  the  temple. 
What  are  the  facts  in  the  case  ? 


*  The  original  and  correct  double  reckoning  of  Scripture,  was  the 
Priest  Record's  "466^2  years"  (instead  of  Josephus'  47o/'2),  reaching 
(i)  from  ist  David  to  19th  Neb.  (B.  C.  1053  to  587),  and  fifty  years  later 
reaching  (2)  from  11  Solomon  to  ist  Cyrus  (B.  C.  1003  to  537);  with  the 
same  466.'/^  years  also  (3)  from  the  death  of  the  high-priest  Zadok  to 
the  full  accession  of  Jeshua,  son  of  Jozedek  to  the  high-priesthood, 
<B.  C.  979  to  513).  But  Josephus,  following  the  current  idea  of  ist 
Cyrus  (as  20  yrs.  before  2d  Darius)  expressed  the  double  reckoning 
with  his  enlarged  "47o'-2  years,"  as  shown  above. 


372  RESTORATION 

g  45.  The  "612"  is  expressly  given  in  the  Priest  Record  as  "the 
number  of  years  during  the  rule  of  these"  13  high-priests,  inclusive 
of  Zadok  as  serving  "/;?  that  temple  which  Solomon  erected."  The  13 
beginning  with  Aaron  could  not  be  made  out  without  including  Zadok. 
(See  Antiq.  5,  xi:  5);  and  his  service  continued  long  into  Solomon's 
reign,  being  "in  the  temple"  as  the  Record  declares,  not  ending 
when  the  temple  was  founded.  "  It  is  not  known  when  he  died,  but 
his  successor  was  his  son  Ahimiaz,  who  enjoyed  the  high-priesthood 
under  Rehoboam."  (So  says  Calmet.)  There  were  20  years  of  build- 
ing (I  Kings  ix:  10);  and  Josephus  then  ends  the  612,  giving  the  20  less, 
or  "592  years,"  as  his  interval  before  the  temple,  several  times 
repeated.  Only  once  (in  another  work,  Vs.  Ap.  11,2)  does  he  forget 
himself,  and  fail  to  deduct  the  20  years.  Everywhere  else  he  gives 
592  before  the  temple,  which  he  evidently  considers  as  consistent 
with  the  "612."     See  the  many  proofs  of  his  592  at  Appendix  G,  §  90. 

To  suppose,  as  Schwartz  does,  that  Josephus,  while  explicitly 
teaching  592  years,  both  in  Antiq.  8  (iii:  i)  and  in  Antiq.  10  (viii:  5), 
straightway,  in  the  same  Antiq.  20  (x:  i)  teaches  as  his  own  number 
(says  Schwartz)  612  years  for  the  same  interval, — is  to  accuse  Josephus 
of  an  inconsistency  and  stupidity  altogether  unbelievable. 

§46.  In  order  to  make  out  the  theory,  that  in  the  War  Josephus 
has  612  years  back  to  the  Exodus,  contrary  to  his  reckoning  in  the 
Antiquities,  Schwartz  interprets  his  reckoning  of  "2177  years"  back 
to  Melchizedek's  building  of  Jerusalem  as  meaning  back  to  Abraham's 
arrival  in  Canaan  !  He  thus  says:  The  2177  years — 430  to  the  Exodus 
and — 612  to  the  temple  =  iX35  years -f  44=  his  "  1 179  years  "  to  the 
accession  of  David.  But  this  makes  44  years  before  the  temple, 
while  Josephus  plainly  makes  but  42  (see  \  18).  Moreover,  this  makes 
the  "  1179  "  reach  back  to  the  accession  of  David,  while  Schwartz'  own 
theory  claims  that  it  reaches  only  to  David's  capture  of  Jerusalem  ! 
Mark  .how  contradictory  of  himself  this  makes  Josephus  to  be.  His 
chronology  in  the  War  expressly  ^zW:?  4g  years  from  the  completion  of 
the  temple  back  through  David's  reign,  as  the  epoch  from  which  his 
numbers  are  dated.  This  settles  his  whole  reckoning,  and  makes  it 
simply  impossible  for  him  to  intend  any  other  starting  point. 

Schwartz  himself  (when  pressed)  has  to  concede  this;  but  he  is  thus 
necessitated  to  claim  that  all  these  numbers  in  the  War  are  "a 
blunder"  of  Josephus!  falsifying  his  real  chronology  here  intended, 
by  7  years'  deficiency  in  all  the  numbers,  and  by  3  years  more 
deficiency  in  most  of  them.  To  start  thus  an  entire  reconstruction  of 
Josephus  (not  a  "  restoration  " ),  by  asserting  that  he  was  such  a' gross 
bungler  and  "blunderer"  as  this,  is  a  theory  we  can  by  no  means 
accept.  Josephus  has  no  system  of  c/ironoiogy,  unless  it  is  here  in  the 
War,  where  he  carefully  brings  together  the  combined  numbers  that 


OF     JOSEPHUS  373 

constitute  it  as  one  whole  system.     And  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by 
David  as  an  epoch  is  here  completely  ruled  out. 

§47.  As  for  Melchizedek,  we  know  that  he  was  already  well  fixed 
as  "king  of  Salem"  before  Abraham's  arrival  in  Canaan,  (Gen. 
xiv:i8);  so  that,  the  notion  that  not  till  then  he  began  to  build  the 
city,  is  altogether  too  unUkely  to  be  ascribed  to  Josephus,  especially 
as  he  makes  no  j-eference  to  Abraham  in  this  connection.  And  how 
could  Josephus  be  reckoning  612  years  to  the  temple,  which  would  be 
(5i2 — 35=)  577  to  David's  capture  of  Jerusalem, — when  he  so  expressly 
gives  it  as  only  557,  /.  <?.,  42  years  from  the  Exodus  to  2  years  of 
Joshua -|-his  "515  years"  thence  to  David's  capture  of  Jerusalem? 
■  (Antiq.  7,  iv:  2.     See  here.  Appendix  G,  |  90.)     Impossible  ! 

It  is  true,  Josephus  mentio7is  that  David  captured  Jerusalem;  but 
when  he  gives  the  date,  he  says  only  that  it  was  "  from  King  David, 
who  was  the  first  of  the  kings  who  reigned  therein,"  (War,  6,  x:  i). 
Though  he  spoke  of  the  place,  it  was  ^&  personality  of  king  and  people 
in  the  Davidic  line  that  gave  him  the  date;  and  so  it  was  at  the  end, 
"470  years"  later.  (See  p.  13.)  We  dismiss  the  theory  referred  to, 
(that  I  David  is  used  by  Josephus  blunderingly,  while  8  David  is 
meajit  by  him))  as  utterly  out  of  the  question.* 


PART   III. 

Josephus'  One  Consistent  System. 

g  48.  We  have  now  exhibited  Josephus'  system  of  chronology,  as 
set  forth  in  his  earlier  work,  the  "War."  It  is  one  consistent  whole, 
without  regard  to  any  reckoning  found  in  his  later  work,  the  "An- 
tiquities; "  which,  however,  we  find  carrying  out  the  same  chronology, 
with  only  the  variation  of  one  year  at  "the  4th  of  Solomon."  At  the 
same  time,  we  have  found  this  one  unchanging  chronology  of  Josephus 
to  be  based  upon,  and  in  agreement  with,  the  Priest  Record  (of  Antiq. 
20,  x:  i);  which  Record  gives  the  correct  Bible  Chronology. 

FROM  TEMPLE  TO  TEMPLE. 

The  chief  point  of  interest  about  Jof.ephus'  chronology  is,  that,  by 
our  showing,  he  has  the  same  interval  from  temple  to  temple  as  script- 
ure has;  and  particularly,  he  has  the  duration  of  the  ten  tribes  of 
Israel,  from  the  ist  of  Jeroboam  to  the  capture  of  Samaria,  as  the  very 
same  254  years  which  the  Bible  figures  demand.  And  thus  his  testi- 
mony confirms  and  establishes  our  Bible  Chronology' as  correct. 

*  Appendix  H,  §95. 


374  RESTORATION 

§  49.  The  certainty  of  the  254  years  as  the  reckoning  of  Josephus, 
is  seen  both  from  the  foregoing  exhibit  from  the  War,  and  also  from 
express  statements  in  the  Antiquities. 

1.  In  the  War.  The  "1130  years"  at  9  years  of  Solomon  minus 
the  "639  years"  to  the  end  of  70  years'  captivity,  give  491  years; 
which,  taking  out  the  70,  are  421  years  from  9  years  of  Solomon  to  the 
beginning  of  70  years  captivity.  These  421  years  can  only  be  made  up 
thus:  One  year  of  Solomon  being  put  as  joint  reign  with  his  father, 
there  are  30  more  years  of  Solomon -f  the  254  of  Isi'ael  +  the  133  to  the 
19  Neb.=4i7  years +  4  years  more=42i  years  to  the  23  Neb.,  as  the 
final  capturing  which  Josephus  makes  the  beginning  of  his  70  years. 

(§  24.) 

2.  In  the  Antiquities,  (10,  iv:  2,  4)  Josephus  says:  "The  prophet 
who  came  to  Jeroboam  foretold  (etc.)  These  predictions  took  effect 
after  three  hundred  and  sixty-one  years,"  "when  now  Josiah  was  in 
the  i8th  year  of  his  reign."  Now,  the  254 years  +  23  more  of  Hezekiah 
-|-55of  Manasseh  +  2  of  Ammon  + 17  of  Josiah=35i  years,  which  is  evi- 
dently the  correct  reading  of  the  361.  For  that  361  can  in  no  way  be 
made  out,  and  the  260  (claimed  by  Schwartz  in  place  of  the  254)  can  by 
no  means  be  got  in. 

§  50.  This  is  conclusive.  And  it  proves  that  Josephus,  Uke  Script- 
ure, has  this  351  +  (14  more  of  Josiah  +  1 1  +  1 1  -f  4  years  more,  or)  40 
more,  making  the  391st  year,  or  full  390  years,  and  40  years,  from  the 
final  capturing  in  23  Neb.,  for  "the  burden"  of  Israel  and  of  Judah 
respectively,  as  at  Ezek.  iv:  5,  6.  (See  Period  E,  |  45.)  And  it  proves 
that  Josephus  had  the  duration  of  the  temple  as  (37  more  of  Solomon-(- 
the  254  + the  133  to  19  Neb.  =424  years,  not  430  (or  431)  as  Schwartz 
claims. 

§  51.  We  have  seen,  that,  while  Josephus  in  the  War  has 
Solomon's  dedication  rightly  after  10  years  of  his  sole  reign  (which  is  11 
years  in  all),  yet  he  there  has  the  temple  built  from  2  years  to  9  years 
■of  the  sole  reign  (which  is  3  to  10  years  in  all).  But  in  the  later  writ- 
ten Antiquities  he  seems  plainly  to  put  the  building  of  the  temple  one 
year  later  (from  B.  C.  loio  to  1003  instead  of  B.  C.  loii  to  1004),  i.  e., 
from  3  years  to  10  years  of  the  sole  reign;  thus  having  the  completion  and 
the  dedication  of  the  temple  both  in  the  same  autumn,  after  10  years 
of  Solomon's  sole  reign,  and  after  7>^  (no  longer  8j^)  from  the  found- 
ing. This  leaves  Josephus  but  490  years  (instead  of  491  in  the  War) 
from  one  temple's  building  to  the  other  temple's  building,  with  50 
years  <instead  of  49)  back  to  the  beginning  of  David.  The  only  change 
thus  made  in  the  numbers  of  the  War,  is  "  1130"  reduced  to  1129. 
(See  Period  D,  I  41.) 

?  52.  Let  us  look  further  at  the  Antiquities,  and  see  how  Josephus 
adheres  to  his  one  consistent  chronology  of  the  War.     He  says  (at 


OF    JOSEPHUS  375 

Antiq.  lo,  viii:  4):  "The  kings  of  David's  race  thus  ended  their  Hves, 
being  in  number  21,  until  the  last  king,  who  altogether  reigned  514 
years  6  months  and  10  days;  of  whom  Saul,  who  was  their  first  king, 
retained  the  government  20  years,  though  he  was  not  of  the  same  tribe 
as  the  rest.*  And  (at  Antiq.  11,  iv:  8)  he  says:  "  Before  their  cap- 
tivity and  the  dissolution  of  their  polity,  they  at  first  had  kingly  gov- 
ernment, from  Saul  or  David,  for  532  years  6  months  and  19  days;  but 
before  these  kings  such  rulers  governed  them  as  were  called  judges." 
In  both  these  passages,  Josephus  evidently  reckons  Jehoiachin 
"  the  last  king "  till  "he  ended  his  life  "  in  Babylon,  22  years  after  the 
23  Neb.,  z.  e.,  in  B.  C.  561,  which  was  "  the  37th  year"  of  his  reign  (or 
captivity  beginning  B.  C.  598).  (Jer.  lii:  31-34.)  And  so,  in  the  second 
of  the  two  passages,  Josephus  says:  These  22  years  +  the  "470 
years  "  back  to  I  David  +  Saul  40  years  =  "  532  years  "  for  the  kings. 
'Here  Josephus  shows  a  vestige  of  the  correct  "40  years"  for  Saul,  as 
rightly  given  by  Paul  (in  Acts  xiii:  21).  But  in  the  first  of  the  two  cita- 
tions, Josephus  gives  his  own  reckoning  of  Saul  as  "20  years."  This 
will  reduce  his  total  "  532  "  to  512,  and  how  does  he  get  the  other  two 
years?  Whiston,  in  a  note  at  Antiq.  6,  xiv:  9,  interprets  his  "2 
years"  for  Saul  as  "twenty  and  two,"  and  thus  would  •account  for 
these  extra  2  years.     The  "  514  "  may  be  a  corruption  for  512.  f 

Josephus'   "470  Years." 

'i  54.  We  have  seen  (§  10)  how,  in  Josephus'  day,  the  Cyrus  decree 
had  come  to  be  regarded  as  twenty  years  before  the  2  Darius,  i.  e.,  as 
if  in  B.  C.  540;  which  divided  Josephus'  seventy  years  captivity  into 

*  Notice  Josephus'  peculiar  style  of  speaking;  "Kings  of  David's 
line"  are  the  subject,  yet  the  predicate  "reigned  514  years  "  includes 
Saul's  20  years;  ("of  whom  Saul,"  is  his  expression). 

t  I  53.  Everybody  knows  that  in  Josephus'  day  there  were  current 
two  estimates  of  Saul's  reign,  he  making  it  20  or  22,  and  Paul  calling  it 
40;  and  in  the  "532,"  we  see  Josephus  falling  into  the  latter  view. 
(See  §  92.) 

Schwartz  objects  to  our  inclusion  of  Jehoiachin's  captivity  in 
Josephus'  period  of  the  kings,  because  it  is  given  at  the  jnention  of 
Zedekiah's  overthrow.  He  seems  unaware  of  Josephus'  peculiarit}'  of 
method,  his  fondness  for  iiieiitioiiiiig  an  epoch  by  its  most  striking 
event,  while  he  carries  down  the  time  interval  to  its  finished  results. 
(See  ij  21.)  Thus,  he  mentions  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Jews  at 
ly  Neb.,  but  he  carries  the  time  interval  (his  "  1468  "  and  his  "  470"  in 
the  War)  down  to  the  finished  capturing  in  23  Neb.  So,  he  mentions 
the  end  of  the  reigning  kings,  but  he  carries  the  interval  of  kings  down 
till  all  had  "  ended  their  lives,"  as  he  himself  expresses  it.  (Ant.  10, 
viii:  4.) 

Schwartz  himself,  trying  to  figure  out  the  amount  without  Je- 
hoiachim,  gets  534  years  instead  of  the  "  532."  So  that  theory  will  not 
work. 


376  RESTORATION 

forty-three  years  before  Cyrus  and  twenty-seven  years  after  him. 
(§30.)  When,  with  this  forty-three  years  from  23  Neb.  to  Cyrus, 
Josephus  put  also  forty-three  years  (instead  of  the  forty-two)  from  the 
accession  of  David  to  the  founding  of  the  temple,  as  shown  above 
(^  51),  he  thus  had  a  new  double  7cckoni)ig  (not  only  at  the  captivity  as 
before  seen,  but  also)  from  temple  to  temple.  For  with  the  427  years 
from  4  Sol.  to  23  Neb.  (B.  C.  1010  to  583),  he  had  forty-three  years 
more  (making  470)  back  to  i  David  (B.  C.  1053),  and  also  forty-three 
years  more  (making  470)  forward  to  i  Cyrus  (B.  C.  540),  as  follows: 


B.  C. 

lute 

7-vah. 

I   David, 

1053 

4  Solomon, 

lOIO 

43 

-     470  years  of  Jerusalem. 

23  Neb'zar, 

583 

427 

-  470  years  of  the  temple. 

I  Cyrus, 

540 

43 

) 

This  double  reckoning  (so  popular,  see  §  24,  29,  42),  was  doubtless 
one  reason  for  changing  from  42  to  43  years  at  the  4th  of  Solomon. 
But  this  second  reckoning  of  the  470  years  (for  the  temple),  is  a  pecu- 
liarity of  Josephus'  Antiquities,  which  has  more  completely  non- 
plussed chronologists  generally  than  any  other  dating  he  has  given. 
The  difficulty  arises  from  the  ainbiguotisness  with  which  Josephus 
assigns  the  terminus  of  the  470  years.  We  will  try  to  unravel  the 
mystery, 

§  55.  At  Nebuchadnezzar's  capture  of  Jerusalem  (Antiq.  10,  viii:  5) 
Josephus  thus  writes:  "  Now  the  temple  was  burnt  470  years  6months 
and  10  days  after  it  was  built.  It  was  then  1062  years  6  months  and 
10  days  from  the  departure  out  of  Egypt;" — that  is,  there  was  1062^ 
— the  47o>^=)  592  years  between  the  Exodus  and  the  Temple,  just  as 
he  elsewhere  puts  it. 

Here  it  does  look  as  if  the  "470^^  years  "  must  end  at  the  burning 
of  the  temple  in  the  19th  of  Neb.  (B.  C.  587.)  But  that  is  simply  im- 
possible to  be  meant  by  Josephus.  For,  the  caption-datings  at  the 
head  of  these  three  books  (8,  9,  10)  are  (i63+i57+i8o>^  [i82><]==)  a 
total  of  500;  and  3  years  of  Solomon  +  the  470  =  473  out  of  the  500, 
leave  but  27  years  from  their  close  to  the  end  of  Book  10;  whereas  we 
know  that  the  last  50  years  of  this  Book's  "  i8o>^  years  "  extend  from 
Neb. 's  capturing  to  Cyrus.  (See  Ant.  10,  ix:  7.)  Therefore  to  consider 
the  terminus  of  the  "470  years  "  as  at  the  19  Neb.  is  to  leave  but  27 
years  from  that  time  to  Cyrus,  or  (50 — 27  =)  23  years  less  than  the 
caption  dating  declares.  The  19th  Neb.  can  ftot  be  the  terminus  meant 
for  the  "470  years."  What  then  was  the  intent  of  Josephus'  reckon- 
ing here? 


OF     JOSEPHUS  377 

?  56.  We  just  now  showed  that  the  temple's  "470  years"  as  a 
second  reckoning  of  Jerusalem's  "470  years"  correctly  reaches  by 
scripture  from  the  "4th  Solomon"  to  the  ist  Cyrus  (as  reckoned  by 
Josephus,  20  years  before  the  2d  Darius,  or  27  years  before  the  tem- 
ple's dedication  as  in  the  gth  Darius.  So  that,  if  the  intended  ter- 
minus of  the  temple's  470  years  be  indeed  at  Josephus'  ist  Cyrus,  then 
the  remaining  27  years  of  the  500  given  in  the  captions  is  a  mistake  of 
the  caption  writer;  and  they  really  carry  us  down  to  the  g  Darius, 
with  the  470+20  =  490  years  to  the  2  Darius,  or  from  temple  to  temple 
as  shown  above.  The  surplus  27  years  plainly  belongs  in  the  next 
Book  after  the  ist  of  Cyrus.  This  will  solve  the  riddle  of  the  "470 
years." 

\  57.  We  have  seen  that  Josephus'  favorite  assignment  for  the 
captivity  was  from  23d  Neb.  to  gth  Darius  (B.  C.  583  to  513).  To  the 
Jews  these  70  years  were  a  blank,  a  lost  period  which  they  disliked  to 
count  by  itself.  But  in  the  midst  of  it  was  one  bright  spot,  at  the  de- 
cree of  Cyrus,  put  by  Josephus  as  43  years  after  the  beginning  and 
27  years  before  the  closing  of  these  70  year's  captivity  (/.  e.,  at  B.  C. 
540),  which  they  looked  upon  as  the  era  of  finished  destruction  and 
dawning  restoration:  That  era  Josephus  had  in  his  eye,  and  his  "  470 
years  "  dating  should  properly  have  been  there  (some  pages  later)  at 
the  close  of  this  Book  10.  For,  his  thought  was  of  that  finished  de- 
struction, that  dawning  restoration  of  the  temple.  By  some  means 
his  dating  is  out  of  place;  and  while  he  wrote  "built"  and  "burnt," 
he  really  meant  "built"  and  "ready  to  be  rebuilt."  Therefore, 
reading  between  the  lines  we  interpi^et  Josephus'  language  thus: 
"  Now  the  temple  was  [and  remained]  burnt  470^2  years  after  it  was 
built,"  till  the  edict  for  it  to  be  rebuilt. 

\  58.  This  we  deem  the  solution  of  this  great  mystery  in  Josephus, 
and  by  it  his  whole  system  of  chronology  is  preserved  in  harmonious 
truthfulness.  For  thus,  we  have  his  ("639  "+7  =  )  646  yeai"s  back  to 
2d  Darius  (B.  C.  520)+  20  =  666  years  back  to  ist  Cyrus  (as  B.  C. 
540)  +  this  "470  years  "  (for  the  471  in  the  War)  =  1136  years  back  to 
the  building  of  Solomon's  temple  (put  as  from  ii36toii2g  years,  or 
B.  C  loio  to  1003) — in  place  of  the  1137  to  "1130  years"  (or  B.  C.  loii- 
1004)  given  in  the  War. 

With  this  harmonize  all  Josephus'  computations.  lu  the  War  he 
has  this  same  number  "470^3  years,"  given  as  the  interval  from  the 
finished  capturing  in  23d  Neb.  (B.  C.  583)  back  to  the  beginning  of 
David's  reign  (in  B.  C.  1053).  And  now  here,  he  takes  the  two  termini 
each  43  years  later,  viz.,  B.  C.  loio  (after  40  years  of  David  and  3  of 
Solomon),  and  B.  C.  540  (after  43  years  of  captivity), — and  he  has  these 
points  also  (B.  C.  loio  and  540)  just  the  same  "470  years"  apart. 
Such  double  reckojiings  of  striking  time  intervals  we  have  seen  to  be  a 


378  RESTORATION 

favorite  study  of  the  Jewish  scribes,  and  Josephus  has  them  fre- 
quently.    (See  §  24,  29,  42,  54,  58.) 

I  59.  The  attempt  of  some  scholars  to  make  this  "470  years"  of 
Josephus  mean  so  long  from  the  death  of  David  (instead  of  his  acces- 
sion) to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  is  utterly  impracticable.  For, 
that  contradicts  Josephus'  own  fixing  of  it  in  all  his  War  numbers,  as 
shown  fully  above,  as  well  as  in  the  datings  we  have  just  cited.  And 
it  also  contradicts  Josephus'  other  "470  years"  dating  (of  the  temple) 
just  now  recited.  As  he  says  the  temple  which  began  in  4th  Solomon 
went  on  470  years  (////  ig  Neb.  say  these  scholars), — how  could  he  at 
the  same  time  (in  the  War)  be  reckoning  only  470  years  from  ist  Solo- 
mon to  2jd  Neb?  This  distance  must  be  an  excess  of  7  years  over  the 
other,  and  must  require  477  instead  of  470  years.  That  very  corrup- 
tion of  Josephus'  number  has  crept  into  his  text  (at  War,  6,  x;  i), 
through  just  such  attempts  to  reconstruct  him  as  we  are  pointing  out. 

\  60.  The  most  futile  attempt  of  all  is  to  fasten  upon  Josephus 
himself  the  absurd  40  years  corruption  of  his  text,  by  which  (at  Antiq. 
8,  vii:  8)  the  reign  of  Solomon  is  increased  to  80  years  !  with  his  age 
correspondingly  enlarged.  This,  say  the  scholars,  accounts  for  the 
large  reckoning  of  Josephus'  (470  years)  given  to  the  duration  of  the 
temple;  and  "Josephus  always  adds  in  those  40  years  with  all  his 
numbers,"  says  even  so  acute  a  chronologist  as  Jackson;  from  whom 
the  sentiment  is  re-echoed  down  to  this  day.  In  order  to  have  the  40 
years  just  fill  out  the  470,  Schwartz  insists  on  430  years  as  Josephus 
p7-e7>WHs  reckoning  in  the  Priest  Record;  but  how  in  the  same  work 
(the  Antiquities)  he  could  have  both  470  and  430  for  the  duration  of  the 
temple,  it  is  hard  to  explain.  And  great  straining  is  used  to  make  out 
the  diverse  medleys  of  Josephus  reckoning  which  have  been  hereupon 
invented.  It  is  pitiable  to  witness  the  tergiversations  and  distortions 
of  chronology,  which  have  thus  been  wrought  out  and  (alas  ! )  imposed 
upon  Josephus,  as  if  parts  of  his  system,  which  on  the  contrary  is  so 
beautiful  and  consistent. 

I  61.  The  40  years  corruption  of  Solomon  is  so  gross  and  mon- 
strous, so  abhorrent  to  all  Josephus'  numbers,  as  we  have  shown,  that 
it  is  a  wonder  for  a  critical  scholar  to  be  deceived  thereby.  After 
framing  so  plain  and  so  consistent  a  system  of  Old  Testament  dating 
as  Josephus  shows  in  his  earlier  work  (the  War),  how  is  it  possible  for 
any  thoughful  man  to  imagine,  that  in  his  later,  riper  work  (the  Anti- 
quities) Josephus  deliberately  repudiated  and  upset  the  whole,  by  so 
absurd  and  unscriptural  a  notion  as  "80  years"  for  Solomon's  reign? 
and  especially  when  he  so  repeatedly  employs  in  the  Antiquities  the 
very  reckoning  of  the  War,  as  we  have  seen?  It  is  entirely  impossible 
to  believe  the  careful  Josephus  guilty  of  such  consummate  tolly;  and 
we  must  find  some  other  origin  of  the  40  year  corruption,  rather  than 
to  ascribe  it  to  Josephus  himself.  A  very  slight  inspection  of  his  work 
betrays  the  source  of  the  corruption. 


OF     JOSEPHUS 


The  Caption  Datings. 


§  62.  Look  at  the  captions  over  the  several  books  of  Josephus'  An- 
tiquities. They  include  in  each  case  a  statement  of  the  number  of 
years  covered  by  the  book.  These  numbers  are  plainly  the  work  of 
some  editor,  not  ot  Josephus  himself;  for  they  in  many  cases  mistake 
Josephus'  reckoning,  as  we  proceed  to  show.  In  our  examination  we 
shall  find  that  this  erroneous  editing  of  the  captions  was  the  origin  of 
the  40  years  corruption  in  the  reign  of  Solomon. 

§  63.  The  caption  numbers  and  Josephus'  own  reckonings  proceed 
as  follows: 


1.  Creation  to  death  of  Isaac  . . 

2.  To  the  Exodus 

3.  Rejection  of  that  generation 

4.  To  death  of  Moses 

5.  To  death  of  Eli 

6.  To  death  of  Saul 


Captions. 

3833  years. 
220      " 

2I  " 

38     loo 

476  I  :?^ 
32  J 


Josephus 

3533 
220 


39 

477 

32 


7.  To  death  of  David     (      40  40 

NN  I  +41   \  Sol.  ext. 

8.  To  death  of  Ahab "o  j     122   S  — 6  1 16 

g.   To  capture  of  10  tribes ^^^  |     157  -j-  20  177 

[o.  To  I  Cyrus   t    182  >^-[2]*  i8o> 


To  death  of  Alexander  the  Great 

To  death  of  Judas  Maccabeus  . . . 

To  death  of  Alexandra 

To  death  of  Antigonus 

Finishing  the  Temple 

Death  of  Alex,  and  Arist 

Banishment  of  Aixhelaus 


253' 


-'        8^    '. 


18.  Jews  from  Babylon (      32       \ 

19.  Fadus  Procurator [;^  ■        3>^    -  -(-5= 

20.  To  Florus  (and  the  War) (      22       ) 


\    190 

(+57 


62 


+ 


Overlap,       27      J 


f^ 


Back  to  Captivity 
Back  to  I  David.  . 


639 
54oK  = 


m% 


"639  yrs. 

j+  27 
\      513;^ 

"ii79[J^]" 


*The  "  i82>^  years"  at  Book  10  is  evidently  a  misprint  for  the  cor- 
rect i8o;4  as  Schwartz  also  concedes. 


380  RESTORATION 


The  Manipulation. 

I  64.  Note  the  many  variations  between  the  caption  numbers  and 
Josephus'  own  dating.  In  insei'ting  those  caption  numbers,  the  editor 
(or  manipulator)  forgot  the  5  years  omitted  after  Florus;  and 
argued  that  Josephus'  "639  years"'  I'eached  from  Titus  to  I  Cyrus 
instead  of  the  proper  9  Darius  (just  the  mistake  continually  made); 
and  therefore,  that  the  books  11-20  covering  that^" period  must  contain 
639  years.  And  the  headings  of  these  books  do  so  add  up.  Whereas, 
Josephus  has  "639  years"  to  9  Darius  (B.  C.  513)4-27  to  I  Cyrus  (as 
B.  C.  540)^666  years  in  those  books,  leaving  but  513^-^  years  in  his 
books  7-10,  which  carry  us  back  (666-)-5i3><^  "ii79[/^]  years"  to 
I  David,  a  17.)  But  the  manipulator  finds  left  a  full  ("  ii79[/'2]"^ 
"  639  "=)540  )4  years  (instead  of  Josephus'  5i3>2  years  left),  to  be  got 
in  some  way  into  the  four  books  back  from  10  to  7.  He  must  contrive 
a  way  to  make  out  this  excess  of  27  years,  in  order  to  reach  the  total 
"  ii79[,^]  "  years  of  Josephus-at  the  beginning  of- David.  What  does 
he  devise  ? 

?  65.  At  book  10  he  has  lost  27  years  of  his  material  (from  9  Da- 
rius to  I  Cyrus),  and  proceeding  backward  to  books  g  and  8  he  loses 
14  more.  This  he  does  by  taking  a  random  remark  of  Josephus  (at 
Ant.  9,  xiv:  i, — never  used  by  him  as  chronology), — that  the  reigns  in 
Israel  add  up  "  240^2  years";  and  using  this  240  as  the  reckoning  of 
Josephus, — instead  of  the  260  of  added  reigns  in  Judah,  correctly 
reduced  by  6  to  254  in  Josephus,  on  account  of  overlaps, — the  manipu- 
lator has  an  added  loss  of  (20 — 6^)  14,  put  with  the  other  loss  27, 
making  a  total  loss  of  41  years  which  he  finds  he  has  accumulated, 
or  40  years  loss  when  Solomon  is  given  40  solus  instead  of  Josephus' 
39.  And  thereupon,  as  he  has  now  reached  the  farthest  book  back- 
ward, where  the  accumulated  error  must  somehow  be  got  rid  of  (to 
make  out  the  total  "  ii30>^  "  to  the  temple  and  "ii79[>2]"  to  i 
David), — the  manipulator  grows  desperate,  and — dumps  the  whole  loss 
into  a  40-year  surplus  built  for  it  upon  Solomon  ! 

I  66.  Calling  Solomon  "80"  is  giving  him  an  excess  of  41;  for 
Josephus  has  but  39  to  Solomon  solus,  i  of  his  40  years  being  given 
to  joint  reign  with  his  father.  And  thus  we  see,  that  this  "80  years" 
corruption  originates  with  the  very  editor  who  invents  the  caption 
numbers.  That  astute  manipulator  rolls  up  the  40  years'  deficiency, 
book  by  book,  as  he  numbers  backward;  so  that  when  reaching  his 
limit  at  Solomon,  he  feels  necessitated  to  assinnc  for  him  a  longer 
reign, — not  having  the  wit  to  see  how  his  deficiency  has  arisen.  And 
so  he  increases  this  caption  number  from  123  to  "  163,"  and  brackets 
in  a  needed  [80]  of  reign,  which  in  time  becomes  fixed  as  the  real 
reading. 


OF     JOSEPHUS  381 

By  this  happy  expedient  of  an  8o-year  Solomon,  the  manipulator 
recovers  from  all  his  losses,  and  Josephus  is  fixed-out  nicely!  A 
clever  dodge,  perhaps.  But,  was  ever  a  more  shallow  corruption  ?  And 
yet,  learned  magnates  to  this  day  are  ringing  in  our  ears  the  wonder- 
ful dictum  that  Josephus  himself  put  the  reign  of  Solomon  at  80 
years  !     Let  us  hear  it  no  more.* 

\  67.  They  tell  us  that  Josephus  "  always  adds  in  "  the  80  years. 
And  Jackson  gives  as  a  specimen  Antiq.  9,  xiv:  i,  where  we  read: 
"  The  ten  tribes  were  removed  out  of  Samaria  947  yeai^s  after  their 
forefathers  were  come  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  and  possessed  this 
country,  but  800  years  after  Joshua  had  been  their  leader;  and  240 
years,  7  months,  and  7  days  after  they  revolted  from  Rehoboam."f 
Jackson  tries  to  make  out  the  "947  years"  thus;  The  "612"  of  the 
Priest  Record  +(80 — 3^)  77  of  Solomon  -f  260  as  the  added  reigns  of 
Judah=949  years.  But  (i)  this  does  not  give  the  number  required,  (2) 
not  one  of  these  items  is  a  reckoning  of  Josephus,  (3)  what  then 
becomes  of  the  "  240><  years"  and  the  "800  years"  after  Joshua 
here  given  ?     Indeed,  the  whole  attempt  is  monstrous. 

This  passage  is  plainly  one  of  the  interpolations  thrust  upon  Jose- 
phus, to  help  out  some  one  of  the  scores  of  theories  concerning  him. 
Very  likely  Josephus  did  make  the  remark  about  "240^  years  "  as  the 
added  reigns  in  Israel;  but  he  made  no  use  of  it  as  chronology.  He 
did  not  even  use  260  of  added  reigns,  in  Judah,  but  correctly  reduced 
them  to  254  by  overlaps,  as  we  have  proved.  Some  one  has  taken  ad- 
vantage of  this  240  year  remark  here,  to  insert  other  numbers  with  it, 
whereby  to  make  out  a  theory  thus:  Josephus'  "  592d  "  year  to  the 
temple-f-(Josephus'  39 — 3=)  36  more  of  Solomon-|-the  "240"  not  thus 
used  by  Josephus=)  867  years  from  the  Exodus,  minus  40  of  Moses  and 
27  of  Joshua  (from  Africanus  not  Josephus  who  has  25)="  800  years 
after  Joshua."  The  "947"  is  a  pure  fabrication  or  misprint.  (Or, 
see  I  93.) 

§68.  Schwartz  repeats  the  usual  assertion,  that  Josephus  includes 
80  years  of  Solomon  in  all  his  reckonings,  saying  there  are  "  at  least 
10  instances  of  this."  But  he  enumerates  onl}'  five,  besides  which  we 
can  find  no  others;  and  his  number  5  is  not  a  case  from  Josephus,  but 
from  the  mutilating  editor  of  the  caption-datings,  the  very  originator 
of  the  80  year  corruption.  Moreover,  his  number  four  is  only  the  dup- 
licate of  number  three;  so  that  he  has  in  fact  but  3  places  cited  from 
Josephus.  One  of  these  is  the  "476  years  "  considered  above.  The 
other  two  are  disposed  of  here  at  §  52. 


*  See  Appendix  I,  at  ^97. 

t  The  Scripture  numbers  add  i4i>^,  but  Josephus'  numbers  really 
add  but  239>^,  since  he  drops  a  year  each  from  Jehu  and  Jeroboam 


382  RESTORATION 

Instead  of  Josephus  "  always  adding  in  "  the  extra  40  for  Solomon, 
no  case  can  be  proved  of  his  adding  it  in.  And  the  assumption  that 
Josephus  himself  got  up  this  80  years  enormity,  in  face  of  his  beauti- 
ful, harmonious,  and  scriptural  system  of  chronology  everywhei'e  ap- 
parent, is  a  monstrous  absurdity,  impossible  of  belief.*  We  repeat, 
there  cannot  be  found  in  the  "  Antiquities  "  any  departure  (except  one 
year  of  change  at  the  4th  of  Solomon)  from  the  full  and  consistent 
plan  of  Old  Testament  dates  laid  out  at  the  close  of  the  "Jewish 
War,"  which  we  have  exhibited  above.     (§  17.) 

Josephus'  Whole  Chronology. 

?  6g.  We  have  seen  that  Josephus  (in  the  War)  gives  "ii30>^ 
years"  from  Titus  back  to  the  finished  temple  of  Solomon,  "and 
1 179  "  [/^  ]  back  to  the  beginning  of  David's  reign;  with  the  49  interven- 
ing years  covering  40  of  David  and  g  of  Solomon, — the  founding  of  the 
temple  being  thus  set  as  at  2  years  of  Solomon's  sole  reign  (after  i 
year  with  his  father).  Those  two  ntunbers  (1130)^  and  11 79)^)  minus 
57  of  excess  and  minus  A.  D.  70,  give  T004  B.  C.  and  1053  B.  C.  as  Jose- 
phus' dates  for  the  finished  temple  and  the  beginning  of  David.  The 
building  of  the  temple,  thus  assigned  to  B.  C.  1011-1004,  Josephus  in 
his  later  work  (the  Antiquities)  changes  one  year  to  B.  C.  1010-1003; 
and  this  is  the  only  change  he  anywhere  makes  in  his  chronology. 

^  70.  The  interval  from  the  temple  back  to  the  Exodus,  and  thence 
back  to  Abraham,  is  given  by  Josephus  (at  Ant.  8,  iii:  i)  as  "592  + 
430=1022"  (corrupt  1020)  years  "from  Abraham's  coming  into 
Canaan  "  to  the  time  when  "  Solomon  began  the  temple  in  the  fourth 
year  of  his  reign."  The  "592"  back  to  the  Exodus  is  confirmed  by 
other  passages.  (Ant.  10,  viii:  5,  etc.  See  my  "  Hist,  of  the  480th  year 
reading"  in  I  Ki.  vi:  i.  Appendix  A.)  The  "612"  of  Josephus  (found 
at  Ant.  20,  x:  i)  is  simply  the  Priest  Record's  duration  of  high- 
pi'iesthood  from  Aaron  to  the  death  of  Zadok,  understood  by  Josephus 
as  reaching  20  years  after  the  founding  of  the  temple,  and  so  in  agree- 
ment with  his  "592"  back   to  the  Exodus.     (See  the  same    Hist,   of 


*  If  anyone  prefei^s  (like  Schwartz)  to  think  that  the  author  of  the 
headings  was  rightly  including  the  5  years  at  the  close,  and  also  the  2 
years  of  error  he  has  seemingly  lost,  making  his  real  total  not  the 
"  639  years  "  of  Josephus,  as  it  now  stands,  but  646  (thought  to  i^each 
back  to  I  Cyrus);  then  this  646  taken  from  Josephus'  "1179  years" 
leaves  533  years  (not  the  proper  540)  back  to  his  date  for  David.  And 
this  will  indicate  that  the  writer  of  the  caption-datings  himself  under- 
stood Josephus  as  reckoning  from  the  8th,  not  from  the  ist  of  David 
(See  §43-47.)  But  this  does  not  fasten  such  a  reckoning  on  Josephus 
himself;  it  only  suggests  that  this  mistake  concerning  Josephus  arose 
very  early,  even  with  the  author  of  his  headings, — it  may  be  Clemens 
Alex,  himself.     (See  Appendix  J,  'i  101.) 


OF    JOSEPHCS  383 

mine.)  Josephus  once  (Ap.  ii:  2)  speaks  loosely  of  the  period  by  the 
"  612  "  number;  but  when  trying  to  be  exact  he  always  puts  it  "592." 
The  430  years  from  Abraham's  arrival  in  Canaan  to  the  Exodus,  is 
confirmed  by  the  numbers  in  the  War  (6,  x:  i),  thus:  The  "  2i77[>^]" 
— "  ii30>^  "  =  1047 — 7  and  ^592=  448  from  Melchizedek  —  18  =  430 
from  Abraham's  arrival.^  Then  we  have  (+  75  years  back=  )  505  from 
Abraham's  birth  to  the  Exodus,  just  as  all  writers  have  it.  Thus,  in 
his  Antiquities,  Josephus  has 

Founding  of  the  Temple,   B.  C.  loio 

—592  years. 
Exodus  from  Egypt,  B.  C.  1602 

— 505  yeai"s. 
Birth  of  Abraham,  B.  C,  2107 

And  in  the  War  these  dates  are  all  one  year  earlier. 

DiLuviAN  Chronology. 

I  71.  The  post-diluvian  period,  from  the  flood  to  the  birth  of  Abra- 
ham, is  given  at  Antiq.  i,  vi:  5,  and  is  much  the  same  as  the  Septua- 
gint  and  the  Samaritan  (not  as  our  Hebrew)  text.  Thus:  The  "2 
years  (corrupt  12)  after  the  flood ""  -f  135  +  [no  Cainan]  -\-  130  +  134  + 
130+  130  +  132-1-  Nahor  129  [corrupt  120]  -(-Terah  70=  "992  years  " 
[corrupt  292].  The  corruption  here  is  evident,  and  the  reason  of  it, — 
an  attempt  to  make  Josephus  agree  with  the  Hebrew  text,  which  has 
700  less  than  Josephus,  or  "292."  The  Samaritan  has  50  less  than 
Josephus  (at  Nahor),  /.  <;-.,  942.  The  Septuagint  has  Josephus'  "  992," 
or  (with  Cainan)  "  1072  "  or  "  1122,"  or  more,  in  different  copies.  (See 
my  Diluvian  Chron.,  Period  A,  B,  |  58,  75.) 

The  ante-diluvian  period,  from  Creation  to  the  Flood,  is  given  at 
Antiq.  i,  iii:  4,  and  is  much  the  same  as  the  Septuagint  (not  as  the 
Samaritan  or  the  Hebrew)  text.  Thus:  Adam  230  -|-  205  -f- 190  +  170  + 
165 -f  162 -|- 165  +  187 +182  +  Noah  600  =  total  '' 2256  years."  Here  a 
like  corruption  has  been  attempted,  by  insertion  of  [1656]  in  brackets, 
which  is  the  Hebrew  value,  the  Samaritan  having  but  1307.  But  the 
larger  (or  Lxx)  values  in  both  periods  are  obviously  the  true  reckon- 
ing of  Josephus.  Of  course,  the  heading  of  his  Book  I,  with  its  "3833 
years  from  the  Creation  to  the  death  of  Isaac,"  is  not  Josephus'  num- 
ber; but  should  be  (2256 +992+ Ab.  ioo-|- Isaac  185=)  3533  years. 

The  corruptions  here  attempted  are  introduced  also  at  Ant.  8,  iii: 
I,  and  at  10,  viii:  5.  At  the  former  place  the  corruption  is  intro- 
duced thus:  Josephus'  1022  [corrupt  1020]  back  to  Abraham's  arrival-j- 
75  to  his  birth4-6o  of  Terah  (as  in  Usher)-|-Hebrew  text  290  (with  2  at 
the  flood  lost)="  1447  years"  [currupt  1440]  back  to  the  flood  as 
given.  Then,  the  1447+Heb.  text  1656="  3103"  [corrupt  2]  back  to 
creation,  as  given.     At  the  latter  place  the  corruption  is  introduced 


384  RESTORATION 

thus:  Josephus'  "  to62><  "  back  to  the  Exodus+505  to  the  birth  of 
Abraham  (without  Usher's  6o)+Heb.  text  290  (with  2  at  the  flood  lost) 
=  "  i857>^  "  years  [corrupt  1957^]  back  to  the  flood,  as  given.  Then, 
i857>^+Heb.  text  1656="  3513)^  years,"  back  to  creation,  as  given. 
The  diverse  methods  of  corruption  here  apparent  may  indicate  some- 
wliat  when  the  respective  corruptions  were  made.  (See  our  Chron., 
Period  A,   B,  |  9,  10.) 

^  72.     We  thus  have  all  Josephus'  Old  Testament  chronology  as 
follows: 


Creation,  B.  C.  5356 

Flood,  B.  C.  3100 

Birth  Abram,  B.  C.  2108 

Exodus,  B.  C.  1603 

4th  Solomon,  B.  C.  ion 

2d  Darius,  B.  C.    520 

Christian  Era,  B.  C.       o 


-2256  =Period  A. 

-  992  =  Period  B. 

-  505  =Period  C. 

-  592  ^Period  D. 

-  49if=Period  E. 

-  520  =Period  F. 


§  73,  We  have  now  sufficiently  examined  all  Josephus'  Old  Testament 
chronology,  and  we  find  it  when  freed  from  corruption  and  misunder- 
standing, a  beautiful  and  harmonious  system,  accordant  with  Script- 
ure, except  in  one  or  two  small  particulars  easily  explainable.  (See 
interval  D,  "592"  years,  and  the  date  of  ist  Cyrus,  B.  C.  540.)  We 
haveprosecuted  this  study  in  the  interest  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which 
are  greatly  illucidated  and  corroborated  by  these  authentic  datings  of 
the  great  Jewish  author.  Indeed,  we  believe  that  no  branch  of  research 
will  throw  such  light  upon  the  Bible  and  show  the  accuracy  of  its  history 
so  clearly  as  will  this  Restored  Chronology  of  Josephus.  Therefore, 
in  the  hope  of  rearing  a  Bible  bulwark  against  incoming  tides  of  assault 
upon  the  historical  and  chronological  verity  of  Scripture,  we  have  pur- 
sued this  labor  of  love.  Let  it  demonstrate,  as  it  must,  the  truthful- 
ness of  God's  Word  ! 

[Appendix  A  to  J  left  in  Ms.] 

*  This  2108  B.  C.  of  Jos.  for  the  birth  of  Abram  is  but  12  years  more 
than  the  true  Scriptural  date(B.  C.  2096)  as  we  have  shown  it  (Period  A, 
B,  ?  17),  and  this  arises  from  his  592  instead  of  580  after  the  Exodus. 

t  In  his  later  work,  the  Antiquities,  Josephus  has  one  year  less  at 
Solomon's  temple  (see  §  51.)  And  his  Priest  Record  (at  Ant.  20,  x:  i) 
if  taken  continuously  would  give  5  years  less  (z.  ^.,  7  years  excess  in- 
stead of  Jos.  12),  or  a  total  of  5351  B.  C.  (viz.,  B.  C.  io6+"4i4"  + 
"466>^  "  -f"  612  "=1598  B.  C.  for  the  Exodus.)     See  §  26. 


OF    JOSEPHUS 


Supplementary  Note. 


As  the  great  aim  of  all  the  foregoing  work  is  to  show  the  truthful- 
ness of  Scripture,  and  its  consequent  claim  to  our  acceptance  as  the 
Word  of  God, — it  was  not  possible  to  follow  this  line  of  thought,  with- 
out awakening  a  kindred  desire  to  justify  the  religious  contc7its  of  the 
Bible,  as  indeed  the  Good  Word  of  a  Gracious  God,  worthy  to  be  ac- 
cepted and  loved  by  all.  This  led  to  a  thorough  overhauling  of  theo- 
logical thought  as  evolved  simply  from  the  Bible  history;  to  discover, 
if  possible,  what  little  screw  was  loose  in  men's  theories  of  doctrine, 
making  them  grate  so  harshly  on  the  sensibilities  of  mankind. 

The  result  was,  another  work  on  "Immortality  and  the  Doom  of 
Sin  ";  wherein  it  is  shown,  that  the  orthodox  faith  of  Christendom,  in 
a  moderately  Calvinistic  (or  rather  Calv-arminian)  form,  commends 
itself  to  all  minds  as  the  Bible  Truth, — with  all  appearance  of  over- 
harshness  and  severity  removed, — when  only  the  little  false  notion  of 
7iatural  YViOoxn  immortality  is  left  out  from  the  unwarranted //«7^j^- 
phizing  about  Eden,  and  each  person's  eternity  is  left  to  the  wise  order- 
ing of  God.  Immortality  is  thus  brought  to  light  in  the  Gospel,  rather 
than  philosophized  out  of  Genesis.  In  fact,  a  limited  immo7-tality, 
meted  out  to  individuals  in  righteousness  and  love  as  occasion  re- 
quires, with  opportunity  for  natural  Decay  in  Sin  where  endless  misery 
is  not  by  stubbornness  necessitated, — this  is  found  the  key,  to  unlock 
all  doctrinal  difficult}-,  and  to  exhibit  the  Bible  as  an  inspired  record, 
not  only  in  itself  absolutely  truthful,  but  coming  from  a  God  infinitely 
lovable,  and  therefore  a  record  eminently  fit  to  be  true. 

No  sooner  was  this  work  accomplished,  than  now  the  tide  of  scep- 
tical and  agnostic  criticism  from  Germany  strikes  us,  denying  the 
truthfulness  of  all  that  has  been  held  most  true, — denying  that  even 
inspiration  secures  truth,  or  that  there  is  any  proof  or  any  need  of 
truthfulness  in  the  Word  of  Christ  or  in  the  Word  of  God  as  given; — 
claiming,  in  short,  that  historic  verity  is  of  very  little  account  in  relig- 
ion, and  that  Christianity  can  flourish  and  must  be  pushed  (like  other 
religions)  on  grounds  of  pious  tradition  and  natural  evolution.  The 
sad  eclipse  of  Faith  foretokened  by  these  wide-spread  belittlings  of 
Scripture,  we  have  tried  to  ward  off  by  a  few  clear  and  sharp-cut 
thrusts  from  the  Sword  of  the  Spirit, — such  thrusts  as  seem  lament- 
ably wanting,  though  urgently  called  for  by  the  times.  And  this  fin- 
ishes our  three-fold  work  in  behalf  of  the  inspired  truthfulness  of  the 
original  Scriptures. 

This  last  outbreak  of  Bible  unbelief  amply  justifies  our  whole  un- 
dertaking from  the  first;  and  shows  that  the  church  must  begin  back 
from  the  foundations,  and  demonstrate  (as  here  attempted)  the  histo- 
rical truthfulness  of  the  Bible.     Does  not  God  at  last  show  his.hand  in 


386  SUPPLEMENTARY 

the  hitherto  hidden  plan  of  our  hfe-work,  as  a  needed  investigation  for 
our  times  ?     "The  Lord  reigneth;  let  the  earth  rejoice!" 

(Private  Remark.  I  regard  as  one  of  the  tokens  of  divine  Provi- 
dence, that,  from  severe  sickness,  God  has  raised  me  so  far  as  to  be 
able  to  write  this  note,  as  a  completion  of  the  book.  Thank  God!  for 
the  faithful  wife,  a  daughter  of  Mt.  Holyoke,  whose  gentle  hand  and 
untiring  devotion  (in  true  Mary  Lyon  spirit)  have  kept  me  alive  so 
long,  to  finish  the  work.) 

Smith  B.  Goodenow, 
Battle  Creek,  Iowa,  May  i6th,  i8gj. 

The  End. 


Another  large  work  by  the  same  author. 


IMMORTALITY 


AND  THE  DOOM  OF  SIN. 


Treated  RatiiDially,  Scn'ptiiral/y,  Historically,  and  Psychologically. 


Being  an  attempt  to  vindicate  the  Bible  and  the  ways  of  God  in 
every  human  destiny,  as  seen  in  orthodox  Scripture  doctrine;. by  the 
view  that  endless  conscious  being  is  only  for  intelligent  accepters  and 
rejecters  of  Christ. 


In  Twelve  Parts. 

Part  I.  Everlasting  Punishment  Attended  With  Everlasting  De- 

cay.    (Chicago,  1873.) 

Part  II.        The  Pilgrim  Faith  Maintained.     (Boston,  1884.) 

Part  III.      The  Crying  Want  of  Our  Times.    (Set  forth  in  sundry 
essays.) 

Part  IV.       The  Early  Church  on  Retribution.     ("Advance,"  1874.) 

Part  V.         Psychology,  or  the  Science   of  Spirit.     (Compared    with 
the  science  of  matter. ) 

Part  VI.       Vital  Theology.    (More  than  moral  theology.) 

Part  VII.     The  Eden  Destiny.     (Not  eternalizing.) 

Part  VIII.  New  Testament  View  of  the  Fall.     (Exposition  of  Rom. 
v:  12.) 

Part  IX.  The  Way  to  Endless  Being. 

Part  X.  Is  Christianity  Universal  ? 

Part  XI.  Is  Gospel  Judgment  Universal  ? 

Part  XII.  One  Great  Eternal  Sin. 


Also 

Sundry   Essays,    Showing  the  Tkuthi-ulness   of  the   Bible  as  the 

Word  of  God. 


r- 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
lO^m^      202  Main  Library 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
—     HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

b 

ALL  BOOKS  W\AY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1-wofrtti  (Mns  may  be  renewel  by  calling  «42-34f5 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

RETO      APR  2  0  1984 

i 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  1/83           BERKELEY,  CA  94720 

1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (g^S 

14  DAY  USE        » 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


WRVlS'SS^^ 


M^Y?^67-?PW 


ptL^'o.  u,<i 


-oen 


449S8jf5 


W^-^  \  b" 


RECDID 


REC'DLD     DE 


1570 -4PM     8 


LD  21A-60m-7,'66 
(G4427sl0)476B 


my  1 7  iQgj     "^ 


General  Library 

University  o£  California 

Berkeley 


^  1 


'mh 


